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.