Signing Off-- My Final Blog!

Photo credit of CNET

"We can't un-rely on this stuff."

This a quote I pulled from a technology analyst in an article on CNET. He was commenting on the increased reliance on our phones and social media in the midst of COVID 19. While some of these major tech companies have faced financial losses, at the end of the day, we are all heavily relying on their products.

An event like COVID 19 is like an excuse to ignore the attachment I have to my phone. I remember the first time that an adult pointed out that I never let my phone out of my sight. I was in 7th grade, clutching my recently-gifted AT&T slide phone, and this old man at church made a passive aggressive comment about teenagers and their phones. I was annoyed, but it also made me immediately aware of how I always had my phone in my hand. Not my pocket or purse, but my hand.

Of course, I grew up a lot. And that brought maturity and self-control, but it also brought my first iPhone, my instagram account, my snapchat. I got an apple computer. I had multiple email accounts that I actually paid attention to.

My junior year, my English teacher offered a significant amount of extra credit if we went without technology for a week. Essential texts and phone calls only, and even that communication was limited to a certain amount of minutes each day. He thought that the experiment would make every kid realize that they're too addicted to their phones. My reflection essay was an argument on why going without technology had caused me to miss multiple events that I could've spent with my friends. We communicate over technology, and when I went without it, I missed parts of my life. His logic, I argued, was flawed. Because the world had changed, and I believed there could be technology in used moderation. I don't think he was happy with me, but I still got the extra credit.

I came to college and became the busiest I've ever been in my life. Being an involved student felt like a full-time job. There were professors and organizations and bosses and friends that I needed to answer to. And my email, my calendar, my phone, my texts were the only connection to them. I was (and sometimes still am) completely overwhelmed by my inbox and wiped out with dealing with people over technology. And I numbed that stress with social media, which only increased the time spent on my phone.

COVID-19 has upped my screen time, no doubt. It has for everyone, I would imagine. But now, my phone is the link to my friends. My laptop is my classroom. I can't un-rely on my technology.

Truly, I'm thankful for it. And my relationship with technology has come a long way in the last few years. Social media is something that brings me joy; staying in touch with my friends isn't an obligation or an addiction, it's a blessing. And while I can still admit that I give technology too much of my time, it doesn't change how I view it's vital role in my life and society. I don't think that technology is the enemy. I think that we are our own enemies. I think that we're sometimes obsessive or greedy or prideful or cruel or numb or careless. I think that we abuse this tool because we sometimes don't know or understand the right way to use it.

I think that at the end of the day, I'm better because of technology. And while twitter or instagram has misled me, or news sites have fed me unreliable information, I only come out of those situations with a stronger sense of truth; I'm quicker to spot a lie, and quicker to demand evidence to a claim.

To make a claim on the good of technology is too ambiguous. I can't truly say what my life would look like without it. I was born in '99 and I've literally watched the age of technology play out in front of me. I do think I've accepted it as part of my life, but I don't think it's a bad thing. Especially now, when my technology is what keeps me plugged in and engaged with the world.

And that's that on that.

The First Amendment & Me

There's a lot to be learned studying the First Amendment.

I feel that we could've spent several days a week unpacking the constitutionality of a number of laws, government programs, and especially how the First Amendment functions in news media.

Because I someday hope to be working in the film and television industry, I decided to explore how the first amendment affects films. After a quick google search, the answer that kept on coming up was the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). This is the same organization which determines ratings of films, but in the 1920's they were founded as a defense against mounting government censorship.

Filmmakers have the right to free speech and free expression-- just as the rest of us. But the amount of exposure that films gain often made filmmakers a target for censorship. Films are often intimate, and they expose parts of us or our society that are not comfortable. The right to do so is protected under the First Amendment, and the MPAA set out to ensure that filmmakers would always be protected. That led to the rating system, which helped protect younger ages or minds from seeing films meant for different audiences.

I found this to be extremely interesting research, and a meaningful last blog post as I consider how this class will factor into my career. As a writer and someday-filmmaker, I hope to challenge people, to make them think, and to create positive societal changes. That can't happen without taking a few risks; creating content that challenges people will not always be easy. It is reassuring to know that in any future endeavors, I am protected by the First Amendment.

For more on what the MPAA does to protect free speech,  Click here.

EOTO - Total Information Awareness Program

The Total Information Awareness Program is a government program that has taken many forms since it's inception in the 1990's. Coined as the Total Information Awareness Program because of it's purpose to collect electronic data on U.S. Citizens, the program faced backlash in years following 9/11 when privacy became a primary concern. The program was headed at first by John Poindexter, Director of the Information Awareness Office. The program was designed to keep track of citizen's habits and lifestyles, allowing the government to keep tabs of illegal activities or movements. This is Big Brother. 

Of course, when this program gained exposure in the media, there was extreme public pushback. That led to the Senate cutting all funding for it in the early 2000's, although there is proof that the the program continued to operate under secret funding from the NSA. Activist groups such as the ACLU have led extensive campaigns meant to scare citizens of what could happen with such a program in existence. While these campaigns have been criticized as fear-mongering, there is truth in their argument: such a conglomeration of data would be absolutely terrifying. For more of a history on the TIA program, click here. 

The implications of such a program are vastly complicated-- while the "Total Information Awareness" was later changed to "Terrorism Information Awareness"-- many still see a problem with data mining, even if it is to protect citizens from acts of terror. Looking into the future, or even analyzing what we know know about privacy and our digital footprint, ti could be extremely dangerous fo re gov foment to be collection data that we publish on the internet, or even data about our traveling, our medical records, and our shopping habits. While it's quite a violation for the government to have access, there is a greater risk that it could be abused by those in power or by hackers. Having that much consolidated power is dangerous. 

Of course, it goes without saying that we all want this country protected from international and domestic acts of terror. And while this program is designed to defend against that, it comes at much too high a cost. As a whole, society would face the effects of massive data mining; living in fear that some unknown entity potentially had unlimited access to any and all private information. This also presents an issue when it comes to marginalized or minority groups. If the government has unlimited access to our information that they are able to utilize upon threat of "terrorism," then many groups, ethnicities, races, genders, or people of varying sexual orientations could fall under attack from their own government. Abuse takes it shape in many different forms, as does prejudice, racism, and homophobia. We must protect ourselves and each other, and not allow our personal information to be mishandled or abused in any way. 

My generation certainly has contributed to the problem-- born into a world that was shaped by the changing technologies, we have never known a life that is different from this onslaught of data mining and privacy wars. I think that on many levels we've grown numb to it. But it's incredibly important to remain aware, and remain active in voting according to our freedoms and fighting for what is right. And while I believe that my generation has left much to be desired, we fight for what is right. And right now, this is a worthy fight.  

For a look at the ACLU’s research and subsequent campaign, click here. 

For a consolidated list of documents released regarding TIA,click here.

How Real is Privacy?

Our phones are wired for surveillance. There are cameras on our streets that photograph our cars. Our social media and digital footprint tell an intimate story that is easily sold by companies. 

There is an alarming lack of legislation that keeps the government away from my information. While I’m comfortable with what I’ve chosen to reveal online, much what is actually invasive is not within my control; where I spend my days, where I travel, where I shop, what I endorse or what religion I follow are all up to grabs when the government has access to my digital footprint. And while I’m a law-abiding citizen, and the government doesn’t have much reason to access my information, the fact that it’s accessible to them means that it’s accessible to hackers, and that is the danger. 

Anyone intending to do harm— be it another government or just an individual—can hack into the systems that are already monitoring my information, and gain access to it. And that leads me to another scary blind spot in legislation.

There is not much beyond filing civil suits that protect me against privacy violations. This is a developing abuse—20 years ago, the internet was not like it was today, and 20 years from now the internet will look completely different. It is changing constantly, which makes current legislation hard to pass, but still necessary. Understanding more of how much of my privacy is out of my control is driving me to support and vote politicians who will pass laws that do protect me. Any way that I can regain some control is a worthwhile. 

The ACLU has a number of articles on surveillance legislation that can be found here. We need to be doing more to ensure that our elected officials are guaranteeing our privacy. 

My Online Footprint

Time to evaluate my online footprint: under my name is an Instagram account, Snapchat account, Facebook profile, and a Linked In profile. I don’t have a personal website, but it’s next on my quarantine to-do list. 

Most prominently used, and therefore most likely dangerous to me, is Instagram. I’ve had an Instagram since I was twelve years old, and I’ve been posting on in regularly ever since. For the first six years it was a private account, but more recently I’ve been oscillating between private and public depending on my mood. I use Instagram all the time—to keep up with friends and family, to check in on trends pushed by my favorite bloggers or influencers, or to stay plugged into pop culture through memes and humor accounts. A scroll through my Instagram will tell you who I hang out, where I live, where I go to school, who my family is (and all of their linked accounts), the music I listen to and the movies I watch. I don’t hold anything back.

And I rarely, rarely think about the consequences. 

Instagram has my email and my phone number; so does Snapchat, and so does Facebook. I’ve always justified it because if I were ever logged out, I could prove that those accounts belong to me. However, if I was ever hacked, that personal information would be fair game. 

It’s scary. Even as I read the article “I’m 14 and I Quit Social Media,” I picked up my phone, went to my Instagram settings, and switched to private. I like to pretend that I am in control of my online presence—that because I am not a celebrity, I would never be targeted by creeps or hackers—but that’s a naïve sentiment. 

Researching what companies like Facebook are doing is a good reminder that I have to take action to ensure my online safety. I can’t be too careful. 

Coronavirus and Fake News

Would you get advice about a Pandemic from an Instagram live? Would you believe that Coronavirus is caused by 5G mobile phone masts? No? Well there are people who do—and that’s the issue with fake news in the time of all this uncertainty and fear. 

Actors, celebrities, and influencers have hundreds of thousands—even millions—of followers; the very same followers who go to these platforms for fashion and lifestyle inspiration are going there for updates on COVID-19. 

This is obviously problematic; you can’t earn a medical degree by the millions of followers on Instagram or Facebook, but that is very easy to forget when celebrities ACT like they have the correct information. 

Thus has begun the spread of fake news in the age of the Coronavirus. Celebrities Woody Harrelson and MIA faced pushback when they posted about a supposed link between the spread of corona virus and 5G. This is baseless, but when disseminated by a popular source, people don’t question it. 

It’s one of the problems of getting our news off of social media; obviously, due to rights protected by the First Amendment, people can say whatever they want on their personal pages. While this is a protected and valued freedom, it means that we as consumers have to guard ourselves against opinions or misinformation being branded as fact. 

News sources are struggling to combat the trust that has already been established when someone has been following their favorite celebrity for years and then they post information about Coronavirus; it’s like taking advice from a friend. 

We gotta learn who our friends are, though. For right now, let’s count on the news networks, not the latest on our Instagram feeds. 

For more on the subject, check out this article on The Guardian. 

Here's to the Watchdog

The value of Free Expression cannot be understated; our right to free speech is a right that enriches our lives, as well as ensures our freedom and democracy. In studying the eight values of free expression, I found that the check on governmental power—considered the Watchdog Role—is arguably one of the most important values. The Watchdog Role means that “freedom of the press enables citizens to learn about the abuses of power—and then do something about the abuse at the ballot box.” (http://medlawlit.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9.html) Essentially, the press’s freedom of expression guarantees that when the government messes up, we know about it; once we know about, we can do something about it. 

In comparison to the other values, I find this one to be the most important because of what it promotes: the idea that no one is above the law, not even the government. We have put laws in place to ensure that power is not abused, and those laws also allow us to openly monitor the government to make sure they never overextend. Essentially, the other values of free speech don’t matter if no one is watching the government to make sure that power is not being abused. 

The checks-and-balance system is one of the most integral parts of our democracy; our country was founded on the ideas of limited government— that the people had a right to elect representatives and officials that represented our interests, and that there was a limit on the amount of power that any one individual or any one institution has. That can only happen if the government has been specifically restricted on powers that are granted unto them, and if we as a nation and as a press are making sure that the people we elect into office are honest people. 

Of course, it’s worth mentioning that in the modern era, we must be diligent in guarding ourselves against “fake news.” A phrase made popular in the beginning of Trump’s administration, fake news implies that media outlets publish or report false information, or very biased information that frames the opposing party in a negative light. While it’s freedom of speech that enables news outlets to critique the government, that also can lead to an unfair portrayal of either party. Here’s a video on what Fake News is and how to spot it.  Ultimately, it is up to us, the average citizens, to make sure that our government is not abusing their powers and the press is not abusing theirs, either.

When the Government Walks Into a News Room...

In class, we've discussed the landmark court cases over the history of the United States that have sought to protect and maintain our First Amendment rights, specifically many of the Sedition Acts that limited the press. I live in a day and age when people tweet their utter distaste of the entire system, the term "Fake News" exists-- the First Amendment is utilized to its fullest extent by both the public and the news networks.

According to a Providence news outlet, Rhode Island Senate was attempting to pass a bill that punished news outlets for publishing or ignoring certain stories: branded as "Selective Reporting." The goal of the bill was actually to promote a fair and equal presentation of issues from the press, but First Amendment advocacy groups spoke out in protest when the bill was announced.

The protests make sense: the government has to be kept out of the newsroom at all costs; let them in once, and we set a precedent that sanctions can be put on the press. Ultimately, the First Amendment won out and the bill was withdrawn to be rewritten and presented again alongside another bill.

Apparently, the goal of the bill was to support those who are accused of a crime, especially those that are heavily reported, if they are afterward declared innocent. Frequently, people accused of crimes and then villanized by the press are never reported on afterward if their innocence is found. This bill was hoping to do so-- the senator who had been pushing it through apologized for the language that affected the First Amendment but vowed that she would continue to seek justice for those affected by the media in this way.

For more information on the bill, check out this article: https://turnto10.com/news/local/selective-reporting-bill-pulled-after-first-amendment-advocates-speak-out

The History of Netflix

After listening to a series of presentations on the development of technology in class, I decided to dive a little bit deeper into the history of Netflix.

Netflix was founded in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph (Who happens to be High Point University's Entrepreneur in Residence!)

Originally a website where people could select movies and have them shipped to their homes, Netflix has now cultivated an entire industry of binge-watching TV shows and streaming entire seasons at one time.

Netflix is the precursor to Hulu, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, and Disney+.

When Netflix changed its shipping model to a streaming service in 2011, it completely changed the game. It took TV worldwide -- at this point in 2020, the only countries without Netflix are China and those with sanctions on the United States. Entire seasons and documentary specials come out in an instant and are consumed by the masses within a week, within a day, within a matter of hours.

How we consumed film and television changed instantly. More impressively, Netflix has made a recent move to win Academy Awards. In order to qualify for the Acadamy, a film does have to be shown in a certain amount of theaters, but Netflix was still able to make their original content available on their streaming services as well. They released multiple films to the public in such a way and therefore were able to produce streamable content that was nominated for Academy Awards, a huge step in moving the industry away from movie theaters and discs.

Here's the biggest indicator that the times are changing: in 2018, 33 million people got rid of cable. And more are sure to follow.

Check out this site to learn more about how Netflix is changing the game:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2019/02/19/what-is-the-netflix-effect/#5f11cb7e5640

The History of the iPhone

What would it have been like to hold the first iPhone in your hand?

In 2007, Steve Jobs, founder of the mega-successful Apple Brand, announced at a Macworld conference that he had created the intersection of a computer, cell phone, and touch screen technology. He knew the precipice of success that him and his team were standing on, however, I don't think anyone could have ever estimated the public response to this brand new iPhone.

The Macworld Convention was in January. In June, the first generation iPhone went on sale. In its first year, it sold six million. This absolutely secured its legacy, and changed the understanding of modern, accessible technology.

The first iPhone fit in the palm of one's hand. It cost $499 for 4 GB of storage. For reference, in 2020, I own a 64 GB iPhone. What was so groundbreaking was the Multitouch technology; no other smartphone had been capable of such a thing. Every other touch screen technology was too sensitive or not sensitive enough-- Multitouch was a break through, allowing the user to tap anywhere on the screen to get desired results, however not responding to literally every point of pressure put on the phone. Apple, of course, patented this technology, and launched their iPhone as the first of its kind.

The impact of the iPhone is nearly incalculable--however, if you want to boil it down to the numbers, here they are:  since 2009, Apple has sold 1.5 billion iPhones; there are 100 million iPhone users in America, making up 45% of the total iPhone users. That means that despite the competitive marketplace and constant push for development and growth in the gadget industry, Apple supporters make up nearly half of the market. This is, of course, because the iPhone is the catalyst for the Google phone, the Windows phone, Androids, and iPads.

Because most of the population owns a smart phone, the internet has become 24/7 -- this is directly a result of the iPhone. Our entire culture has changed because of it. The concept of Apps grew out of the use of iPhones. Jobs that exist only on social media owe their beginnings to the iPhone. The line between work and home is blurred, as well as the line between public and private. Nothing is the same. Our news, our pop culture, and our lives have been permanently shaped by the computer we carry around in our pocket. And we owe it all to Apple.

For more information on how the iPhone changed our lives, check out this article on CNN.

How Many Voices Are Never Heard?

Antiwar.com: an entire website devoted to defending Libertarianism, and I've never heard a word from it. While, yes, it's easy to attribute the lack of coverage to the far larger budgets and exposure that other news sites have, I believe that the reporting on antiwar.com is shut down because of the extreme opposing views. 

Antiwar.com is proudly libertarian, which is a political view not often featured on sites such as CNN or Fox; typically, what’s considered conservative and liberal is defined by the stories and agendas of major news sites. Antiwar messages aren’t beneficial to either cause, and so the stories are shut out. 

On the other hand, the site is proof that free speech enables people to come together to push a message forward under any specific agenda. The articles on Antiwar.com provide details of America’s involvement in the middle east that frame the war as an unconstitutional occupation. Whether this is true or not ultimately becomes a matter of opinion when the entire world can report on whatever they want. 

Antiwar.com provides freedom of opinion and speech to an entire portion of our population who isn’t represented in mainstream news cycles, even if it is a little nutty. 

Using Our Freedom of (Oscar) Speech: Celebrity Advocacy on the Oscar Stage

Oscar Sunday – synonymous with Hollywood’s elite, the film industry’s biggest night…or perhaps with #Oscarsowhite, or Times Up? Whatever you associate the Oscars with, there’s no question that every year, it’s a night of glamour and controversy, and it’s best when the two are served up together. This year, the Oscars celebrated an inclusive win—Parasite, a South Korean film, took home Best Picture, the first international film to do so in the nearly-100-year-long-history of the Academy. But what seems to be drawing the most attention is Best Actor Winner Joaquin Phoenix’s acceptance speech. 

            Phoenix won for his role in Todd Phillips’ Joker, the origin story of the infamous Gotham villain. Phoenix, who has been sweeping the awards season this spring, typically does a speech marked by humor and gratitude, instead Phoenix used his time to give voice to “the voiceless.” Phoenix is a vegan, and outspoken supporter of animal rights. He used his speech to address animal cruelty, associating it with gender inequality, racism, queer rights, and indigenous rights. In response, farmers were outraged. 

            Instead of getting into Phoenix’s cultural politics, instead I want to address the notion of activist-driven award speeches. I know plenty of people who gather round to debrief award shows, and every year I hear the same phrase about any celebrity that spoke out: “They’re up there to accept an award. They should stick to what they’re good at, and not get political.” I fundamentally disagree. I believe that it can be annoying to watch a three-hour award show and get bombarded with political messages; however, I don’t think that celebrities are abusing their power. People have an absolute right to expression, and that doesn’t change, whether you’re an actor or a businessman, whether you have access to millions on live television, or you’re making YouTube videos that three people watch. Just because our celebrities are entertainers doesn’t mean they don’t have minds, or that they don’t have beliefs that they feel passionately about. If someone wants to start a conversation, let’s have a conversation. The only way to move forward is to speak up and speak out. 

For more information on this, check out this article. 

The Power and Poetry of the Law

 

As our class has spent the past few weeks studying the Founding Era of America, it’s been particularly fascinating to understand the Judicial system of America and how the Supreme Court serves the country. Specifically, a brief documentaryon the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

At one point in the video, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Stevens, and Ginsburg discussed the nature of the Constitution and it’s fundamental implications on their decisions. Particularly, a difference of opinion emerged as the Kennedy, Scalia, and Stevens remarked on the unchanging nature of the 200-year-old Constitution, while Ginsburg disagreed. Citing amendments such as the 19^th, which gave women the right to vote, Ginsburg challenged the notion that the Constitution was unchanging. As she put it, “We the people was composed of a very small part of the people.” The constitution by which we live now is one born out of the Suffrage movement and the Civil-Rights Era. 

The beauty of law and the Constitution is the simultaneous absoluteness of such a long-standing document, as well as the ability to interpret it and amend it. As Ginsburg was arguing, we should take pride in the fact that while our Constitution has secured the prosperity of the United States, we’ve also been able to adapt it to our evolving society. 

The Constitution is a living, breathing document—that much is proved by the Supreme Court, which receives thousands upon thousands of petitions. It’s proved by the people who ardently and passionately advocate for what they believe to be right in accordance with the constitution. And it’s a steadying guide when the going gets tough and the answers are unclear. 

It’s a document of the people, for the people, upheld by the people

What Does "Free Speech" Mean On Campus?

According the ACLU, what’s the constitutional response to racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic speech? More of it—not less. 

I’m paraphrasing an article published by the ACLU on their website addressing the freedom of speech on college campuses. The line above that I’m referencing stuck out to me specifically. The article, which can be found at this link, says that more speech & debate is the solution to offensive or bigoted speech. 

I’ve done past research on free speech on college campuses, and I’ve found most frequently within our educational institutions, there is a very specific brand of censorship which ensures that ideas, speakers, campaigns, or films that feature offensive rhetoric are altogether banned from coming to campuses across the United States.

While sanctions such as these often masquerade as “wokeness,” the unfortunate result is an obvious limitation on free speech—and any limitation is a constitutional violation. The ACLU draws a reasonable conclusion: “Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible.” 

The inclusivity that campus groups protest for sake of is the very same inclusivity under the law that allows for controversial—and often labelled “hate”—speech. 

I found this article to be particularly interesting as a college student; moreover, I found it to be a fitting introduction to my blog posts this semester. The years I spend earning my undergraduate degree are foundational to my civic identity. I believe its incredibly important to be surrounded by people and ideas that are vastly different from my own. 

A campus that is censored is an echo-chamber; when everyone believes the same thing, there is no debate, no conflict, no resolution, and most significantly, there is no growth. And I have no intention graduating with the same ideas that I had when I began my time at High Point University.