Blog Post #12

    As an undergraduate student in today's digital world, I've come to realize just how complicated online privacy has become. For my generation, feeling in control of our online presence seems nearly impossible. Growing up with social media, many of us have had our lives documented before we even knew what it meant. The article I’m 14 and I Quit Social Media reflects a common frustration, the feeling that we don’t have control over what gets posted about us online. This story is part of The Privacy Divide, a series that dives into the cultural and economic issues surrounding digital privacy.

    It’s striking to think that for many of us, the decisions about our online identities are made before we can even speak. I’ve seen this firsthand in the lives of those close to me. When they discovered what their friends and family had posted about them on social media, they felt embarrassed. It opened my eyes to how easily our lives can be shared without our consent. That experience led to an important conversation with those around me about what boundaries should exist online. I believe this is a conversation that many families should have because it’s crucial to discuss how our digital footprints can follow us for a long time.

    The struggle with online privacy doesn’t stop with individuals. It extends to professionals, too. The article I Left the Ad Industry Because Our Use of Data Tracking Terrified Me highlights a growing concern about how our data is tracked and used. Every post, click, and purchase contributes to a vast amount of personal information that companies collect. In many cases, we have become the product. Instead of just connecting with consumers, advertising has shifted toward finding new ways to gather personal information from us through our devices.

    The author of this piece left the advertising industry because they were uncomfortable with how data was used to manipulate consumers. They pointed out that the original purpose of advertising, building connections, has been replaced by a relentless quest for personal information. The devices we use, from smartphones to smart speakers, invite a network of companies into our lives, all trying to track our every move. Accepting this reality can feel overwhelming, especially when it raises questions about our privacy and autonomy. Should we really be giving up so much personal information just to use these platforms?

    For my generation, it feels impossible to completely disconnect from social media. It's woven into our everyday lives and affects how we communicate, socialize, and even express ourselves. But just because we can’t escape it entirely doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to protect ourselves. It’s important to think carefully about what we share online and who we share it with. Being aware of what companies do with our data is equally essential. 

    Having conversations about digital boundaries, like the one I had with my family, is key to understanding how to manage our online presence. We may not have complete control, but we can make better choices. The stories in The Privacy Divide remind us that while we face challenges in the digital world, we can still take charge of our online identities. By staying informed and having open discussions about privacy, we can advocate for a safer and more ethical digital environment for ourselves and future generations.

Blog Post #10

    After watching the PBS Frontline documentary "In the Age of AI," I learned a lot about the impact of artificial intelligence on jobs and the economy. One of the most surprising things was how many jobs at risk of being replaced by AI are held by women, like cashiers and fast-food workers. I never really thought about how these positions are mostly filled by women, and it’s concerning that this issue isn’t talked about more. It makes me wonder what will happen to people in these jobs as AI continues to grow, especially in fields like HR and finance, which are also more likely to be automated because they involve routine tasks.

    However, AI does have some positive aspects. It can assist businesses run more efficiently and create new tools that can solve complex problems. However, I also have concerns about privacy and security. I was shocked to learn how much of our personal data is collected by companies like Google and Facebook. The idea that they are building detailed profiles of us and selling that information to third-party companies without us really knowing is pretty scary. It made me realize how vulnerable we are online, even when we think we're being careful.

    National security is another thing to think about. The documentary mentioned that AI could lead to something like a “cold war,” where countries compete to have the best technology. This could create tensions between nations, which is worrying. On top of that, there’s the issue of online security and identity theft. As AI gets better at collecting and analyzing data, it might make it easier for hackers to steal personal information, which is already a significant issue.

    In the end, while AI has the potential to improve many aspects of life, it also comes with serious risks. It is important that we find a balance between using AI to help society and making sure people’s rights and privacy are protected. We need to think about how these changes will affect everyone, especially those who are most vulnerable. "In the Age of AI" opened my eyes to these challenges and helped me realize how crucial it is to address them.

Blog #11

    Recently, I came across the concept of the Spiral of Silence during another group’s presentation, and it immediately caught my attention. Created by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, this communication theory explains why people sometimes hold back from sharing their opinions, especially when they think the majority believes something different. It is interesting to think about how the fear of being the odd one out can actually silence people who might have a valuable or opposing viewpoint.

    What I found most compelling is how this theory explains that the fear of isolation plays a huge role in why people stay quiet. We naturally want to fit in, so when we feel like our opinion doesn’t align with the majority, we might avoid sharing it to prevent being excluded. This fear keeps pulling us further down the spiral, making it even harder to speak up.

    One term that stood out was Solar Polarization, which describes how the loudest, most extreme opinions rise to the surface while more moderate voices are drowned out. This really resonated with me, especially in today's world where social media can sometimes amplify polarizing viewpoints and make it seem like there is no room for middle ground.

    There are several historical examples of the Spiral of Silence, such as during the Civil Rights Movement. Early on, many people supported racial equality but were hesitant to voice it due to fear of backlash. It also showed up during the Great Depression, when economic pressures shaped public opinions on government policies. Even now, we see this in various social movements where people may hesitate to speak up, worried about how others will react. Understanding the Spiral of Silence has made me think more critically about why some opinions get shared while others do not, and how that impacts conversations around important issues.

Blog Post #7

    It’s frustrating that strong antiwar voices are so hard to find in the mainstream media in society today. Recently, I came across two websites that completely shifted my thinking about U.S. military operations: ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative. Both of these sites feature writers who take a firm stance against the constant military interventions the United States seems to be involved in all over the world. What is strange is that these perspectives are hardly ever talked about on major news networks, and I can’t help but wonder why. One reason might be that the media has its own agenda. A lot of mainstream outlets are owned by huge corporations, and some of them have connections to industries that benefit from military spending, like defense contractors. If those corporations profit from war, why would they want to promote voices that are critical of it? It makes sense that they would filter out antiwar opinions, it just does not align with their financial interests.

    Another reason is that the media tends to side with whatever narrative the government pushes. Whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in power, both parties have supported military action at different times, and the media seems to follow suit. Challenging U.S. military involvement would mean going against the political establishment, and I believe most mainstream outlets are too afraid to do that. Let me be clear, I fully support and understand the value of strong military. I believe in national defense and protecting American interests. But there is a distinct difference between defending ourselves and constantly intervening in conflicts around the globe. These websites ask important questions that we’re not hearing enough in the media. Shouldn’t we be talking about how much we’re spending on these military operations and whether they’re actually making us safer?

    What really surprises me is how little exposure I’ve had to sites like ANTIWAR.COM or The American Conservative as a college student. These sites offer refreshing perspectives that challenge the mainstream narrative, but they are not exactly well-known. It’s almost like these antiwar views are intentionally sidelined. I was only made aware of these websites when they were provided to me for an assignment for class. It is difficult to locate any substantial criticism of U.S. foreign policy on the internet, which feels strange when you consider how important these issues are. In my opinion, part of the problem is that war brings in ratings. The media knows that stories about military conflict, threats, and strikes get people to tune in. More viewers mean more ad revenue. Stories about peace or pulling back from intervention never have the same dramatic effect. So instead of giving airtime to antiwar voices, we get coverage that often seems to support continued military involvement.

    At the end of the day, it’s clear that if we want to hear strong antiwar voices, we can’t rely on the mainstream media. We have to look for alternative outlets like ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative that are willing to challenge the status quo. The media might not want to focus on these perspectives, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important. It’s up to us to seek them out and start asking the tough questions that aren’t being asked enough about U.S. military actions.

Blog Post #9

    A false flag is when a political or military action is carried out to make it look like an opponent is responsible. The purpose is to manipulate trust, like when a country stages an attack on itself and blames the enemy to justify starting a war. While false flags have been used throughout history, currently we see more conspiracy theories falsely claiming that real events are false flags. Social media has played a huge role in spreading these claims, making it hard to know what’s true and what’s not.

    The impact of false flags is serious, with the potential to lead to war, death, and widespread confusion. Governments or powerful groups using false flags to push their agenda are essentially lying to the public. This causes mistrust in the government and other institutions, which are supposed to be honest and transparent. It becomes even worse with how fast misinformation spreads on the internet. This can make it hard for people to trust what they hear or read. In today’s world, false flags are often sneakier than before, meaning people might not even realize they’ve been tricked. This makes it even harder to trust what’s happening around us. When people feel they’ve been lied to, they start to question everything, even when the information is true, which creates a bigger divide in society.

    Different groups of people are affected by false flags in different ways. For example, people in lower-income groups might not have access to the same information or resources to help them stay informed. Because of this, they may be more easily misled. On the other hand, wealthier individuals usually have better access to information, making it easier for them to spot false flags and avoid falling for misinformation. However, just having money doesn’t guarantee that someone won’t be misled. False flags can trick anyone.

    When it comes to age, older people might be more set in their ways and less likely to question what they hear, especially if it fits with what they already believe. Meanwhile, younger people, who are still forming their opinions, might be more open to believing whatever is popular or trending, especially on social media, where misinformation can spread quickly. Gender can also play a role in how people react to false flags. Men are often seen as being more logical and might approach these situations with skepticism, while women are thought to be more empathetic and may take a different approach. When these perspectives come together, it can help people make better decisions about what’s true and what’s false. Sexual orientation and minority status can also shape how people react, especially if a false flag directly affects their community or identity.

    For me personally, false flags represent a real concern. Being part of the younger generation that’s constantly connected to social media, I’m exposed to countless opinions and ideas that could be false or manipulated. It’s easy for someone my age to fall for misinformation, especially if it’s shared by friends or trusted influencers. This makes it even more important for me to stay informed and learn to question the sources of information I encounter. False flags could easily manipulate my perspective on important issues without me realizing it.

    As for my family and friends, they might also be affected by false flags, especially if they are not careful about the sources they trust. My family members might lean on their life experiences to judge information, but false flags are designed to exploit trust and manipulate even well informed people. If my friends aren't careful, they could be swayed by trending stories on social media, believing in causes or events that aren't real, which could lead to divisive conversations or misunderstandings. My generation especially is vulnerable to the effects of false flags. We’re constantly plugged into online platforms, where misinformation spreads quickly, and it’s easy to get caught up in something without verifying if it’s true. If false flags aren’t properly identified and questioned, they could shape our opinions, political beliefs, and even our actions in dangerous ways. It is important for people my age to become more critical thinkers to avoid falling into the traps set by false flags.

Blog Post #8

    Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory explains why some technologies take off while others do not. This theory breaks down the adoption process into five main groups. This includes pioneers, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards. Looking at the first television broadcast in 1928, we can see how TV followed this pattern of adoption.

    At the start, television was groundbreaking because it solved a big communication problem, it let people see live events from far away. Before that, the radio and newspapers were the main ways to get information, but they didn’t have the same impact as seeing something happen with your own eyes. This made TV appealing to the pioneers, meaning the inventors and innovators who created the first broadcasts. They laid the groundwork for the technology, and their vision attracted the early adopters, known as the people who were quick to see the potential of television. Early adopters were excited about how TV could change the way people learned, received news, and were entertained. They embraced TV as a symbol of progress and the future.

    However, not everyone was ready to dive into this new technology. In the beginning, TV was expensive, and there weren’t many programs to watch. Plus, the economic uncertainty of the Great Depression and the looming threat of World War II made people hesitant to spend money on something seen as a luxury. This meant that many waited until after the war, when the economy improved and TVs became more affordable. This marked the move from early adopters to the early majority. During the Post-War Boom, television became a key feature of middle class American life. By this point, TV had become mainstream, influencing culture, politics, and family life.

    Even with TV’s popularity growing, some people were still slower to adopt it. The late majority consisted of people who only bought a TV when it became even more affordable or socially expected. For some, there were cultural or personal reasons for not getting a TV earlier. For example, certain religious or conservative households might have viewed TV as unnecessary or even harmful. These laggards were the last group to adopt the technology, only doing so when it became almost unavoidable.

    This same adoption pattern can be seen today with new technologies like social media. Personally, I’ve chosen not to join particular platforms. In terms of Rogers' theory, I might be considered a behind when it comes to social media in this way. While I see the benefits, like staying connected and being up to date, I’ve weighed the downsides and decided they’re more significant for me. Privacy concerns, time consumption, and the pressure of constant engagement have kept me from adopting these platforms.

    Just like with TV, adopting new technology involves weighing the positives and negatives. For some, the benefits far outweigh the risks, while others may take their time or choose not to adopt at all. Whether it's TV or social media, everyone makes their choice based on their values, needs, and the costs and benefits they see.

Blog Post #6

    In one of our recent classes, a classmate gave a really insightful presentation on the invention of the telephone and its major impact on society. Their analysis was both educational and eye opening, offering a clear look at how this important technology, created in 1849, changed communication in significant ways. They explained that before the telephone, people mainly used written letters, which were slow and often inconvenient. The introduction of the telephone allowed for instant voice communication, which transformed how people interacted. This change wasn’t just about making things easier; it also revolutionized business practices by enabling faster internal coordination and more effective communication with clients and partners across the country.

    The presentation also covered the broader effects of the telephone on society. It was interesting to learn how the shift from writing to speaking led to an increase in literacy and a greater focus on education. People had to adapt to this new way of communicating, which encouraged improvements in verbal skills and learning. This technological shift had a significant impact on how people engaged with each other and their surroundings. Another key point was the new challenges brought by the telephone, such as privacy issues with party lines, where several households shared a single line. This setup led to concerns about the confidentiality of conversations, showing how new technologies can create both advantages and problems. Overall, the presentation offered a well-rounded view of how the telephone not only enhanced communication but also changed social norms and personal interactions. It highlighted how a single invention can deeply influence both individual lives and the broader structure of society, making it clear how important technological advances are in shaping our daily experiences and social connections.