Final Media Blog Post : Relationship with Technology

 

Introduction: 

• Technology is all around us nowadays no matter if we like it or not. It is ingrained in our lives in ways that no one thought it would be. For example, everyone in college nowadays uses a computer to take their notes and do work. Over two decades ago, or even a decade ago, that would not be the case. That is why today I will be taking sometime to discuss my relationship with technology and how we connect with each other worldwide. 

Do you think your relationship with technology is healthy? Why or why not?

• I think that my relationship is somewhat healthy. I feel like it just depends on what you use it for instead of just doom scrolling on TikTok for long time. I say somewhat healthy because of the fact that I use a mix of my computer and phone. Typcially, my computer is my school lifeline. I have a copious amount of tabs, writings and assignments all on my computer and often complete a lot of assignments on there. Where I fall short is the distraction of my phone being even nearly in my vicinity. I also sometimes give into online shopping on my computer or use the iPhone Mirroring feature. Due to this, I can easily hav access to anything that I have available on my phone. This will make me overall less productive and therefore lead into the doom scrolling or entertainment tab.

Do you think that you are giving technology the appropriate amount of time in your life, or do you think that technology is taking up too much time in your life?

• I think sometimes technology can becomes a bit too overbearing in which it takes over a but of my life. The best example I have of this is when you are out to eat with a group of friends and instead of conversing or even engaging in other activities after the dinner, you sit there on your phone instead of being 100% present in the moment when there are any other times you could simply be on your phone.

Do you think technology is informing you and making you smarter, or do you think that technology might be misleading you and giving you unreliable information?

• I feel like technology is somedays making me smarter considering how much information we have available, but at the same time misleading me due to the fake news outlets on Instagram that can be quite tempting to look at and believe, until you look at the account and who actually runs these sorts of things. Fake news is prevalent even off of phones, however it is wya more accessible nowadays and easier to fall for these tricks.

Do you ever worry about these things, or do you think it's just an accepted part of the society we live in?

• Truthfully, I feel like our lives would be significantly different without technology and that is the reason why a lot of our parents talk about their days because they were so distinct and are now altered differently. The things of concern are mainly that technology gets too advanced to the point of no return and ends up taking away things that humans actually need to have an income and overall survive. I guess to an extent I worry about the now curated “digital image” and what people think about me as well my possibly future jobs getting taken away. 

What about your friends and family? Do you think that technology is a positive part of their lives? How does technology play a role in your relationships? Good and bad.

• I think that how my family uses technology versus how my friends use technology is very different. My family did not grow up with a phone constantly in their hand and have more of a knowledge as to how to get things done without their phone. I speak myself and on behalf of my peers, that we as a society get a lot more stuff done with our phones because we know what works and what doesn't. Family does not really have that distinction which I feel like is what is making them such polar opposites. I feel like from a standpoint of positivity though would be more so awarded towards my family than my friends. Not from a creative view, but more so that they do not have very high screen times and if they do it is simply for work purposes or getting in contact with their family and friends. Our generation is known for doom scrolling and using technology in silly and I guess for a lack of better word, unmenaingful ways.

What would they find? How much of an online presence do you have? Google yourself — that's the first thing they will do! What comes up? What kind of image does it paint? Is there anything you should edit out of your online presence?

• I would find a photo of me from my senior year of high school when I worked as an editor and writer for my high schools newspaper, The Stallion. The image it paints I would say is someone who is a motivated journalists which is the career I do want to pursue down the line anyway. I feel like not many employers would right off the bat find my Instagram, for example, due to it being restricted to the public eye. Linkedin could probably be found, but even that is the most I guess “work professional” social media that there is.

Final Thoughts:

• There was an article I read from the medium.com which states, “We are depressed because of technology, we are healed because of tech and the list goes on. We don’t need to worry about robots taking over us. We are already driven by algorithms- a slightly crude form of robots.” So, the conclusion being that we need to accept that technology is already a crucial apart of us as humans it just matters how much we would want that to take over.

Presentation Reactions

The first topic that I will be discussing is the Overton Window. This was a political period that explained ideas in depth. The timeframe for this window was extremely vital as it was where acceptable discourse and issues can be discussed and labeled as extreme. This overall moves more towards social progress, but at the same time can be manipulated. Throughout this process, they (extremist views) become more and more accepted through the normalization process. Which means that older generations may resist change and are seen as radical -- the window holds signs which may shape the world we inherit. Overall, the point of the Overton Window is that it helps us interpret political laws in a good setting. 

The second topic I will be discussing is the Spiral of Silence. This is when a person or a group is less likely to voice their opinion if most people in the group disagrees. The Spiral emphasizes the importance of the dangers of not listening to other voices. The reason why some people cave and overall do not go with their gut feeling is because they have a fear of isolation, judgment and can't do criticism. However, when the ideas within a group are closer and similar then the majority will act out on that. Overall, the lack of discussion can cause more divides and lead to social polarization - two sharp contrasts in groups. For example: climate change, abortion or covid vaccines. In conclusion, understanding this dynamic is crucial for preserving the environment. 

Lastly, there is the Smith Mundt Act. What this stands for is the US information education exchange act. This means that the government: 

• isn't allowed to spread propaganda to US citizens

• act allowed gov agencies like the CIA to broadcast propaganda overseas whether it be TV broadcast, books, pamphlets, movies or radio shows

• which in turn, passed a the 112th congress under Congress

Anti-War Post

The reasoning behind not hearing about these websites is because the mainstream media and news services simply do not want to portray the government's actions in a negative way. Pretty sure these news channels are obligated to not talk negatively about the wars that the United States is funding -- their only job is to talk about what is happening, not why it is happening. There is an article on a website called wagingnonviolence.org which discusses why anti-war is rarely every seen on the big screen, "And finally, since the mainstream media are owned by enormous corporations that have their own interests—which generally run contrary to the interests of those struggling for radical or progressive social change—getting positive news coverage of protests will always be an uphill, and sometimes futile, battle." This shows that contrary to popular belief, most people who work for these kinds of organizations just do not discuss these topics due to what their channel believes in, especially if the news is more conservative, but even in massive democratic dominated news organizations, that still is not the case. 

We have to seek out these websites ourselves because the government does not want ties to something. They (the government) know what they're doing is bad, however they want to cover their tracks and tie it to anything negative. Therefore, it is discussed in a space where people or society is interested in that sort of thing, and can seek it out themselves. A lot of people are unaware that the United States government funds wars because in return they can get the money if they assist another allied power, even though they have no real reason to be a part of such a thing. In conclusion, the reason why society cannot find these websites without looking something up is due to the mainstream media concising what is said about the United States government. 

Citizen Journalism Post

• Beyond a simple definition, what are the implications? What might be good, what might be bad?

This is a kind of journalism that is written and produced by the average citizen. It is an off-brand kind of journalism, where the reporting could be coming from your best friend and not a news anchor talking about the wars happening in Lebanon. The media that is used is a mix of social media and websites. The reason why this came to be was because of these few reasons, according to ivint.org: 

• Rising lack of trust in traditional media

• Greater coverage on minor issues

• Less censorship in certain areas

• Highlighting and providing a diverse range of voices and perspectives

• Enabling young people to voice more progressive viewpoints

The implications of this is that these people are typical eye witnesses of a scene. It would be as simple as someone recording a burning building, but the person recording does not have any degree in journalism and was just someone in the neighborhood. The good of this is that people on social media can see what is happening in real time, however this information is almost never accurate. This has brought journalistic companies into a swirl of disaster trying to discern. In an article on  Brittanicia, it states that, "Traditional news media, while battling declining readership and viewership, leapt into fray with their own websites and blogs by their own journalists." This further elaborates that news organizations and journalists could lose their money to the average person just posting some random video on Twitter, that gains more traction than a news organization on the TV. Another article called Tate.org.uk discusses how the internet brings a bunch of new waves of information, but we are not only the recipients of that, but now the creators. 

- How might it affect society as a whole?  

This affected society as a whole when John F Kennedy got assassinated and the moments of that happening was caught on camera, but some guy who just so happened to be recording. There is an active website that is still trying to discover what happened on this day. An article called, The JFK Files is actively recruiting citizen journalists to take what information they have and give it to them via google form. 

How might it affect different segments differently — rich/poor, old/young, male/female, gay/straight, majority/minority?

This will overall end up affecting different segments of life by letting the more poor people have access to reporting and maybe even give them the creative ability to potentially make a living out of it themselves. This goes for any kind of person no matter who they are. The common phrase is "anyone can be a reporter". The major impact this would eventually have on people is that they fall in love with reporting and eventually land a career in it, like how a few reporters, such as: Robert Macneil and Jim Lehrer. 

- How might it affect society as a whole?  

This affected society as a whole when John F Kennedy got assassinated and the moments of that happening was caught on camera, but some guy who just so happened to be recording. There is an active website that is still trying to discover what happened on this day. An article called, The JFK Files is actively recruiting citizen journalists alts to take what information they have and give it to them via google form. 

How might it affect different segments differently — rich/poor, old/young, male/female, gay/straight, majority/minority?

This will overall end up affecting different segments of life by letting the more poor people have access to reporting and maybe even give them the creative ability to potentially make a living out of it themselves. This goes for any kind of person no matter who they are. The common phrase is "anyone can be a reporter". The major impact this would eventually have on people is that they fall in love with reporting and eventually land a career in it, like how a few reporters, such as: Robert Macneil and Jim Lehrer. 

How might it affect you? Your family and friends? Your generation?

This will affect our generation of society wanting to create their now news outlets to discuss topics that the larger media companies are failing to cover. This debate has been going on for over a decade now and the rise of social media and technology makes it so much easier for anyone, no matter how old or young, to document and report on things happening around them. There is a difference between this and people who are a part of non-profit newspaper organizations, pursuing journalism at a college level degree. The main takeaway from this is that these are people around us or that we talk to on a day to day basis. My parents could be documenting on things in a local sense. One day, I feel like our generation will eventually be overtaken by some of these blogs, despite them not be 100% credible, but at the same time will be more to human interest due to their easy accessibility, no subscription and no hiding or scamming people out of knowing the truth. 

Diffusions of Innovations Post

 

Who were the pioneers? 

The pioneers of my invention, the emoticon or the emoji, was Scott Fahlman and the Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita. Scott Fahlman was the one who invented the emoticon through a "Bboard" post when he was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. This caught on because of the fact that people around the world needed more than words to get their point across. 

Who were the early adopters?

The early adopters were people my age because they were anxious to get their hands on this type of technology. So people became early adopters because of the fact that they wanted messaging to be more fun, but also making posts more visually interesting while simultaneously being able to bring a smile to your friends face as you send a smiley face emoji. 

Who were the early majority?

The early majority was, at this point in time, when Apple first came out with the iPhone and emojis were all the rage. The emoticon was obviously still a viable option at this point in time, however more people were drawn to the already premade faces that you could use on a whim. There definitely weren't as many as there are now at this moment, but they were great messaging tools when it came down to it. Instead of saying "okay" you could just send a thumbs up emoji and the conversation would still have the same feel, if not better. 

Who were the laggards?

The laggards or the adopters were people who probably, still to this day, do not have an iPhone. The emotion is probably not at all used within this certain target market to begin with. I know that my grandparents personally never even knew how to access the emojis when they would send me a text. 

What are the downsides or the negative aspects of this?

The only downside is that the more negative emojis can create a much more intense discussion than of previous interest. The more broad and versatile ones may bring upon miscommunication and will therefore make them more inefficient when it comes to discussing things digitally. This was all found in an article written by CNN . 

In The Age Of AI

 

• What about privacy, pros and cons?

The pros to all things AI is that it does make the world more efficient. You are able to do things or just a robot do something else for you, however, the unfortunate aspect to that is the robot could eventually one day do your job. An example of this in the video is a guy who has lived in his hometown all his life and the video shows him driving down and explaining all of the stores and places that used to be present and active, are now either boarded up or are planned to eventually be taken down. A negative result of this is that poverty arose in that specific area significantly. Now, he is trying to give back to the community. The privacy that was concerned was that in the video in Asia, people have the option to pay with their faces or if the person does something bad they can be caught. This is good for when it is used correctly, however there always is going to be a bad apple who will use that information to potentially stalk someone. 

• What about national security?

National security runs down the same line as privacy concerns. The main reason why the government and other higher uo agencies have these kinds of things implemented is because of safety reasons. However, sometimes that information is kept secretly and tucked away or it could be used for someone who is not actually doing something against the law. 

• What about online security and identity theft?

Like I have previously mentioned before, the use of using your face or finger print as a way of security could be taken advantage of and used to track how well that content works, but that information gets put that could in turn jeopardize someone's life potentially. The face ID could make you so much more identifiable of that information gets into the wrong hands, basically. 

Presentation Blog Post

 During my time observing and watching everyone speak there were a few topics that spiked my interest. 

The first one was the printing press because that is how the invention of books and even paper and newspaper became a thing. Some interesting things to take note of here was that once the mechanism was invented, the printing press made over 200 copies of books within a span of three years, considering this was made ages ago as well, which is quite a fast turn around. The people used oil based ink instead of normal ink since it could print and read easier. Prior to this invention, the thought of curating a book would take far too long due to the fact that scribes had to sit down and hand write them. Then, the scribes would re-copy and that was just Inconvenient and super time consuming. Due to the efficiency of this invention, production sales went down in price and the printing press was a huge success for 300 years. 

The next invention I will be talking about is the invention of Twitter. Twitter was originally a side project that was originally supposed to be where texts could be sent to groups of people. The appeal of this app was that you had 140 characters to fit in what you wanted to say, which makes this app successful to this day because in a journalistic aspect you got to catch the reader right away to take them into the Tweet. This is also used for a lot of social media influencers as well businesses. However, despite the benefits, Twitter is actually banned in quite a few countries due to the fact that some countries want to limit what their people have access to. 

Lastly, the one that interested me as well was the creation of Email. The creator, Shiva, actually got a copyright of the email at only the age of 14. The creation of it was super simple at the beginning and had to overcome many challenges until reaching a point of having an inbox, an outbox and a way to send and receive items and also organize them using folders.