Digital (Permanent) Footprint

I may be part of the last American generation to not have smartphones around until sometime in middle school. I am very appreciative of that fact as I have childhood memories of running around outside, playing make believe, and setting up forts in my attic instead of glued to a phone. I more than love having a smartphone now but I’m thankful my childhood was different.

I now use technology for school, work, social/communication, entertainment, and probably way too many other things. In many ways it makes life easier and allows more productivity but for each benefit, there is also risk of negative impact. That’s why it’s so important to regularly assess the emotional and mental strain and stress. In many ways, the internet adds more stress and burden that we weren’t meant to handle. We now have instant access to news updates, which means we’re constantly faced with issues outside of our control.

There is a developing concept called “digital wellbeing” that has many different definitions. One that I especially like is “The mindful balance between digital connectivity and digital unplugging.” (Corina Sas)

This is what I am aiming for - because the key to well being in anything is finding the right balance for yourself.  It may be different for different people and even for myself at different times in my life, but that is the goal I aim for. 

Like the prompt suggested, I decided to search for myself on Google. Some of my top hits were: LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter, VSCO, DePop account (which I didn’t know I had), and voter info. There was also some old/outdated information like my old jobs or old accounts I don’t use anymore, my personal info including my home address, age, and jobs I’ve held. It’s very scary how easily people can find info. Thankfully, I don’t have a bad image but I don’t like how easy it is to find all of my and my family’s personal information. 

There are tons and tons of articles and advice that are worth looking into. Here are some that I found: 11 Tips For a More Professional Social Media Presence; Remove Yourself from the Internet, Hide Your Identity, and Erase Your Online Presence; 8 Steps to Being (Almost) Completely Anonymous Online; How to Protect Your Privacy Online

I also recently learned about something called the National Day of Unplugging. Unplug Collaborative is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that organizes the National Day of Unplugging. It started in 2009 as an awareness campaign that promotes a 24-hour respite from technology annually observed the first weekend in March.

Hopefully these will help you become more aware of your use of time and digital footprint just like they helped me. Now, I’m going to take a break from my electronics and go for a nature walk. You should too.

Diffusion of Innovation

Almost every invention, concept, or widespread cognitive process involves theory. These theories are depicted as a bell curve, with the pioneers or innovators at the top. These are the people who are the first to think about and discuss a new idea or thought. These are individuals who are willing to take chances, experiment, and learn along the way. The early adopters are often trendy people who appreciate trying new things such as new technological products. They are represented as you progress up the bell curve shape. The early majority phase develops to influencing the majority of society. 

The people now "pave the way for the employment of innovation in mainstream society and are members of the general population." As you progress along the curve, the late majority will get their chance to join the innovation bandwagon. These are people who saw the early majority participate and have a positive experience, and then decide to participate after the risk has been reduced and the product has less demand among the wider public. Finally, the laggards will be those who initially opposed innovation; these are risk-averse individuals who want to be cautious and undertake research prior to making purchases. Because the laggards take so long to adopt the new technology, it makes their daily jobs more difficult.

These phases, in my opinion, are interesting and provide society with a great deal of self-determination. This theory enables people to choose whether to take a risk, play it safe, or follow in the footsteps of their peers. This is one of the most relevant and interesting theories I've learned about so far because it truly applies to all aspects of life.

See more at https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/diffusion-of-innovation/ 

Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Many industries were controlled by a single business or entity in the late 1800s. This allowed the people in charge of these industries to make a lot of money, but it also made it nearly impossible for other businesses to compete. As a result, monopolies would be able to wield a significant amount of economic power. Smaller firms were either purchased or closed down. This proved to be a problem for a variety of reasons: prices for the things owned by these monopolies could be as high as the trust desired, making it difficult for people to afford; workers in that industry could be underpaid because there were no other companies to work for; and smaller businesses struggled to survive. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (SAA) was a landmark law passed in 1890 that aimed to break up monopolies and decrease the power of trusts.

The Northern Securities Company was formed in 1890 when industrialists J.P. Morgan and banker John D. Rockefeller joined the Northern Pacific Railway and the Union Pacific Railroad to form the first ever trust in American history. The Association of Railroads (later renamed the American Railway Association) saw this as a "unjustifiable constraint" on competition, and filed a complaint with Congress under Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Northern Securities Company was the first corporation to be found guilty of breaking the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Their assets were liquidated and their shares sold to other railroad companies in 1907. The next big case was that of Standard Oil in 1911, after they acquired more than 90% of the oil industry in America through a series of mergers. It was also used against Monsanto Company's takeover of the entire Colorado extractions business in 1928, which was a success because the company was eventually sold off in a series of mergers and acquisitions.

The issues created by monopolies such as Standard Oil and The American Tobacco Company had to be addressed, or the country's economic instability would continue. Senator John Sherman advocated that trust organizations be abolished, causing them to break up into smaller pieces. The legislation was passed in 1890, and it ensured the much-needed competition in the economy that it was intended to provide.

 The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is still in place today, and it has been used in lawsuits involving firms such as Toyota, General Motors, Walmart, Coca-Cola, American Airlines, and Starbucks. In fact, since 1890, over 2400 cases have been filed under it. If a firm is found to be engaged in anti-competitive behavior, it can be penalized up to $100,000 per day for each day that the action was carried out. Since its introduction, the law has been applied 80 times, resulting in fines totaling more than $1 billion dollars.

Facebook, which owns the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is one of the few corporations that comes close to this level of no competition. Owning three of the world's largest social media firms might raise concerns about the Anti-Trust Act, but given that they are still in direct competition with Twitter, Snapchat, and YouTube, I believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Facebook is not a monopoly. 

Disney is another firm that is on the verge of becoming a monopoly. Disney owns Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, ESPN, and ABC, among other entertainment organizations. According to a study, Disney is responsible for 40% of all content produced in the entertainment sector. As shocking as that is, it still means that 60 percent of all other entertainment is provided by independent companies, indicating that Disney is not a monopoly. 

While our economy still has numerous powerhouses, none compare to those of the late 1800s, and I don't expect any action to be done against them. The chances of the US government taking matters into their own hands is low, as long as there is still competition in the open market. This does not mean that we do no longer need the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I would argue that we have much of our competition today because of this act. If we didn't have the ability to break up huge corporations that hurt our economy, it would directly hurt us, the consumer. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act has been amended numerous times since its creation, but its primary goal remains the same: to promote competition. 

To learn more: visit the Federal Trade Commission and Corporate Finance Institute websites. 

Privacy or Security? Pick One

We've all seen that "random" ad appear on our screen that is directly related to the issue you were just talking about with a friend. You might be thinking to yourself, "Wow, what a coincidence!" However, you may be shielding yourself from the terrifying idea that we are, in fact, being heard.

According to a TedTalk by Christopher Soghoian, the government has access to everyone's phone calls, text messages, computer searches, emails, and a slew of other technology-related data. What is the reason for this? One of the reasons, according to Christopher, is to intercept messages sent between terrorists, drug dealers, and maybe anything else that could threaten the United States. That makes sense and seems acceptable until you realize it implies the government has access to not only drug dealers' and terrorists' phones, but also ours. 

Our technology, which we own and use on a daily basis, are not only scrutinized by the government, but also by large enterprises and corporations. They can be linked to third parties, allowing anyone with the touch of a few buttons, clicks, or searches to access our information and invade our privacy. Companies like Facebook can target adverts for various people by invading people's privacy and collecting personal information. In reality, Facebook uses tracking pixels to collect information on your surfing habits, which explains why I've been seeing Sephora ads after searching for a product I saw on a TikTok trend. Facebook is always watching. 

So, is AI beneficial or harmful? Everything, of course, has the potential to be used for good or evil. It enables the search for and purchase of products or information easily. It can also protect us from the villains in our world. However, when used within the home, it has the potential to invade people's privacy, and it can essentially be used to violate human rights. What used to be limited to a physical area called the home has now been expanded to cyberspace. 

Where is the line between right and wrong? Is our technology being controlled by "big brother" or is it safe and secure? It is important for people to be able to keep information out of unauthorized hands. The advancements we've made in technology are amazing, but like anything new, there is always a threat we must be cautious about. I believe it's important to look at everything we use on a daily basis so that we can try to anticipate any possible risks that might be associated with it. Overall, privacy and security must not be a victim to the advancements of technology.

For more information, visit: https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_myerson_big_data_needs_big_privacy

Antiwar or Anti-Speech?

One of the things I admire most about this country is every citizens' opportunity to hold opposing viewpoints without fear of government censure or retribution. However, the prospect of censorship appears to be closer than ever. 

Websites like antiwar.com and theamericanconservative.com are completely necessary but difficult to find. Now, in my opinion, journalists should report only the facts when writing news pieces. There should be no presumption that a journalist's ideas are influenced by what they write. Simply by looking at the titles of the articles on www.antiwar.com, I can tell they are opinionated. For instance, "The Malevolence of the Pentagon's Brilliant Strategy in Ukraine" shows that the post will almost certainly have an opinionated tone. On the front page of antiwar.com is the book cover of a California radio host, Scott Horton, addressing putting an end to the war on terrorism.

While some readers may be turned off by the highly sarcastic or politically charged language, these websites are not for those users. There is a difference that I think today's media outlets are forgetting: opinion pieces are for opinions while journalistic pieces are for the facts. It's wonderful to have both but too many news sources have turned their journalists into writers who can't report a single piece without spinning it to fit their viewpoint.

Without getting into too many conspiracy theories, I believe that the government has no problem trying to silence viewpoints that go against their own agenda. What can we do about it? Keep finding sites like this, read their posted articles and maybe even choose to support them. Even if you don't agree with the authors viewpoints, we must still ensure that our country never gets to a point where the government decides what you are allowed to say.

Class member EOTO

First, I have a confession to make. I just started a new job with a wedding planner who was showing me everything we pack and have on hand for weddings. One thing that we always carry with us is a walkie talkie AND an earpiece. Not just any earpiece but the invisible ones that are placed inside your ear. After I left, I allowed myself a moment to freak out and anticipate the enjoyment of using these gadgets while feeling like a secret agent. 

That being said, as someone who is fascinated by technology and enjoys all the latest gadgets, I found it fascinating to listen to the history of many of the technologies we use today. I specifically enjoyed the history of the radio. I knew that the first wireless commercial transmission of the human voice was from New York City to Wilmington, Delaware in 1897. But I was not aware of the history before this point and it turns out that there were some very interesting struggles and fights for control involved. In fact, Alexander Graham Bell spent the first part of his career working towards telegraphic speech recognition and transmission. In addition, there were multiple inventors like Thomas Edison who worked on creating a talking device but ended up getting into arguments over whose invention was more successful. 

Overall, I enjoyed hearing my classmates reports and I'm looking forward to the next EOTO.

The History of the VCR

The introduction of television into the American home in the 1940s and 50s, provided Americans with a whole new source of entertainment. Companies like RCA were attempting to crack the code of practical video storage in the 1950s. It was reasoned that since audio could be recorded on magnetic tape, why couldn't video? Video footage, on the other hand, requires far more data than audio and so must move considerably faster around the machine's tape heads. Instead than spinning the tape around the heads at insane speeds, Ampex discovered that the heads themselves should rotate. The problem was, it was about the size of a desk. It also cost $50,000 (about $500,000 in today's money). 

Both Sony and JVC recognized that television viewers desired the ability to time-shift, allowing them to watch whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The corporations determined they couldn't come to an agreement after a year of heated debate over cassette size and picture quality. They split up, paving the way for an epic battle between Sony's Betamax and JVC's Video Home System, commonly known as VHS. In the end, VHS won. But both systems paved the way for the future. 

Then another issue arose. Despite the billions of revenue that the home video market would eventually bring in, movie companies believed that Betamax and VHS would mark their downfall. But thankfully, our very own Fred Rogers came to the rescue. In 1979, the case was tried in U.S. District Court, with the court ruling that Sony was justified and that VCRs constituted a fair use of the studios' property. Universal filed an appeal, and the ruling was overturned two years later. 

In 1983 and 1984, the case went in front of the Supreme Court. Mr. Rogers testified in favor of the VCR during the proceedings. He claimed that home recording machines gave families more choice over how and when they watched television. Mr. Rogers also believed that people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, such as when to sit and watch a show. In the end, the Supreme Court agreed and VCR's were here to stay.

In 1977, a man named George Atkinson opened the very first video rental store ever in Los Angeles, California. He believed that renting movies would be more appealing to customers, and he was right. By 1985, there were almost 15,000 rental stores open. By 1987, 37 million VCRs had been installed in homes, with an average of eight movies rented per month. By 1990, half of all studio revenue came from the home video market.

VHS stayed even after the DVD was created in 1996. In 2016, Funai Electric reportedly produced the last-ever VHS VCR, bringing the end of the VHS era, but opening the door for at home theaters, family movie nights, and so many more advances in technology to come.

(Note: This link also goes through a 50 year history of the VCR) 

Freedom of Expression

Two of the eight ideals of Free Expression are very important today and have stood out to me. "Promote tolerance" is the first, while "Protect dissent" is the second.

Promoting tolerance appears to be the most relevant to my perspective on society, and it is a stance that has not been thoroughly examined. Despite the fact that hate speech is sometimes protected, there are penalties for it. The role of government should be to promote tolerance, oppose dehumanization, and create a society where diversity is encouraged. Freedom of speech exists not only to protect people from the government repressing them but also to protect from others oppressing them.

There are two other ideals that if achieved would help contribute to these goals: "Prevent hate crimes," and "create opportunities for education and dialogue." In order for these goals to lead us down this path, we must first define what we mean by promoting tolerance. Tolerance is most often defined as the "ability to live in harmony or acceptance of someone with different beliefs, race, religion, etc." The problem with this definition is that it has a very narrow scope. What happens when someone does not believe in your beliefs? Some would say that they should be tolerant of others. However, using the rest of the definition "the ability to live in harmony," if we cannot live peacefully and comfortably around people who do not share our same values, then why should we be intolerant of them?

If a person believes something very different from what I believe and acts on it in a way that negatively affects me (i.e. by telling me why I am wrong, forcing me to listen to their beliefs, or even trying to change my thoughts), they are infringing on my rights. The reason that the government is involved in protecting people from others oppressing them is because it has always been one of the main purposes of government. The term "freedom" refers to from whom our liberties are protected: other citizens and the government. When someone believes something that another does not and does something about it in an oppressive way, regardless of whether or not it is legal, it can still be a hate crime.

Protecting Dissent is a related concept that is very significant in today's culture. On all sides of the political spectrum, there are many people with divisive opinions. Even if some appear extreme, they should still be allowed to express themselves. For example, women all around the world have been able to tell their story as a result of movements like #Metoo, resulting in a more informed society that will not tolerate sexual abuse going unnoticed. Protecting Dissent is the idea that people should be treated fairly, regardless of whether or not their actions hurt others. While this seems like a good idea, it has its flaws. If there were no news stations and other sources of information, how could we determine what is true and what is false? Is it always important to be tolerant and accepting towards others?

For example, everyone seems to have a different opinion about masks, vaccines, travel, and social life, in today's COVID atmosphere. Some countries have reopened and others still have severe travel rules in place. I believe that every single person has a right to their own opinion. Each person's voice has the power to affect our future. News is a huge source of information for us today, with the media being able to share information in a way that we can understand it to help make our decisions for the better. People with opposing views should not be silenced, but instead, taught about one another's differences and share their thoughts with those who are interested.

If we could come together as a society, we would have a more informed crowd that would not be afraid to voice opinions or learn from the opinions of others. After all, this country is founded on freedom, and we are free to choose what we believe.

Supremely Dysfunctional: A Look Into Our Modern Day Justice System

In 2015, a Tumblr controversy nicknamed “dress-gate” began when a Tumblr user posted a picture of a dress, asking the internet to help her decide on the true color of said dress. The internet answered and the picture went viral when it seemed no one could agree on the colors of the dress and interestingly enough, no one could even remotely see the other side’s colors in the picture. It’s as if people were viewing two completely different images. That story leads me to a seemingly unrelated but extremely important question. What is justice?

Although deep down every human being claims to want justice, everyone has their own perspective of the justice that they strive to reach and long to see fulfilled. And although we would hope for this high ideology to be easily agreed upon and reachable, the truth is that so often, our ideas of justice have a great deal to do with our own personal experiences and opinions. So how does a society achieve such a lofty standard when we see just how intensely two sides can disagree on whether a dress is black and blue or white and gold? Or, more importantly, whether a man is innocent or guilty? 

Keep in mind the age old saying “There are two sides to every story.” Assistant Professor Dr. Anna King’s article Just Mercy Through Cultural and Convict Criminology, published in the Journal of Criminal Psychology, explores cultural criminology. Dr. King uses the example of how different two photos of the same object can look when taken by two different people. In other words, two different perspectives. 

How easy it is to convince ourselves the evidence agrees with our side after we’ve immediately formed an opinion. “For social researchers, a point of view inevitably shapes the nature of the processes employed and the conclusions reached (Becker, 1967). Though less often acknowledged, and rarely made explicit, the emotional and moral stances researchers find themselves assuming toward their subjects (e.g. Jewkes, 2011; Sparks, 2001) that play a potent role in the creation of images of crime and criminals.” (King 81) Now that’s a lot to unpack but she makes her point explicitly. Criminology is inherently based on perspective. 

The Supreme Court Justices were intended to be appointed not to make the law but to ensure it is carried out. Unfortunately, today we see how carefully judges are chosen to ensure they are not “ruling from the bench.” There is a reason political parties go up in arms over which president is able to choose the next judge because regardless of what they are elected to do, opinion and bias will always shape an individual's perspective. While the intent behind the Supreme Court was pure, humans are not. Just as some Tumblr users saw black and blue and others saw white and gold, a Supreme Court justice, or any judge for that matter, will always interpret the law based on their personal bias. 

As Dr. King continues, “Ultimately, both the product and process of conducting empirical research are part of the same social world that creates images of crime and criminals that loop ‘between the mass media, criminal subcultures, and crime control agencies’ (Ferrell, 2007, p. 3) too often easily lending themselves to the creation of false realities that quickly translate into intractable criminal justice policy.” (King 81)

While it may seem negative, my main take away is this: No one is perfect (neither the criminals or the judges.) But the beauty in the creation of the Supreme Court is that is meant to be close to perfect. It was meant to uphold precedent and set precedent for the future. It was meant to rely on what we know from the past with real, hard logic and evidence. It is also meant to keep the rest of the government in check by serving those who believe they have been wronged. When I read cases that have been unanimously decided or have bipartisan support, it makes me believe that there is at least one branch of our government that tries to do what is right, no matter their own thoughts. True justice is nothing more than revealing the truth and being willing to act on it. The Supreme Court's power enables some to act and some to be set free.

My Top 5 Sources of News and Information

Today's media outlets are constantly at war with each other trying to prove their own credibility and, at the same time, throwing as many opinions and viewpoints to their readers as possible. While it's a difficult world to trust in, there is still something to be learned in each article you read. My personal mantra is: get a second opinion. These five news sources below are the ones I typically trust the most and usually the sources I go to to double check other news outlets. 

#1 - The Wall Street Journal

My main source of news is the the Wall Street Journal, which is often referred to as the world's most credible newspaper. Despite its slightly liberal bias, it has become a widely-used resource for both journalists and readers. It's often ranked among the top newspapers in America because it provides detailed information that isn't found anywhere else. 

As a financial daily, its articles are aimed at those with a business background, but it also provides interesting content for people like me, without any investment experience whatsoever. Their articles also provide access to the people who make decisions in finance, business and politics. Each morning, I receive The 10-Point: A Guide to the Day's Top News in my inbox, which helps me stay on top of the most important national and international issues and events each day. Here's a screenshot from today's 10-point. (1/19/2022) 

#2 - Fox News

I also use Fox News because they provide unwavering support for the United States, while also presenting news from a conservative angle. In my opinion, Fox is probably one of the few networks that provides unbiased coverage when it comes to international affairs. They supply an alternative perspective that other networks don't have when it comes to international issues like trade with China or military strategy in North Korea (or lack thereof). I gain the most knowledge when it comes to the range of stories that Fox publishes as most credible networks choose not to cover many of the stories that Fox does.

#3 - New York Times

The New York Times is another one of the most trusted sources of journalism in the world. Since it’s been around for over 200 years it has an impressive archive of information about all events that have occurred on earth, reported reputable news stories, and provided important information to readers on a wide range of topics. I enjoy reading their pieces because of the wide amount of resources and sources they offer.

#4 - Politico

Politico’s investigative journalism is regularly praised by both media and politicians. Their mission is to enhance the public's understanding of US politics through coverage of local, state, and federal legislation, as well as international relations. In my opinion, unlike many other news sources, Politico doesn't engage in soft-ball journalism. Rather than writing articles that read like press releases or biased blogs that only repeat what a politician said during a speech, it writes original news stories with political insight and thorough commentary. Politico isn’t where I go to find an “inside scoop,” but instead unbiased truths about our political system.

#5 - BuzzFeed

In addition to traditional reporting and analysis, BuzzFeed News also has a large

focus on investigative reporting. This source is new for me. Since they published a whistleblower article last December entitled: "Secret CIA Files Say Staffers Committed Sex Crimes Involving Children" this news source caught my attention and I have continued to be impressed with their commitment to finding the truth. While I don't always read their traditional news reports, I have gained a lot of respect for their investigative reporting and continue to read new articles they publish.