#9

In the Age of AI

As we watched the "In the Age of AI" documentary, one topic that really stuck out was the increased commercialization of artificial intelligence. The documentary talked about how new technology has begun to automate jobs. This concept is especially interesting to me as a business major, as I'm fascinated by the different factors that go into the success of a business or economy. In my international economics class we have spoken a lot about how automation leads to economies of scale, meaning that as production increases cost per unit decreases. In that class, we examined automation in the context of capital machinery replacing human labor, but the documentary revealed an even more pressing concern about AI replacing human labor. This is such an important idea to be aware of because there is a dichotomous relationship business has with AI. On one hand, the use of AI as a form of automation allows businesses to raise levels of efficiency and cut costs. This generally means lower prices and easier access to goods/services for us as consumers. On the other hand, inequality in the workforce is rising due to middle-class and lower-class types of labor being taken over by AI, while people higher up the ladder are those investing in the AI that replaces those jobs. 

Another way artificial intelligence holds economic influence is through online commercial platforms. Although we don't view apps/sites like Facebook to be anything other than entertainment platforms, in reality, social media is an enormous market for profit. In the past, industrial capitalism took nature and converted into it into buildings. Now, Shoshana Zuboff explains that with surveillance capitalism, "private, human experience is claimed as a free source of raw material, fabricated into predictions of human behavior." This idea is frightening to me because we use digital platforms so regularly that we are often unaware that our private thoughts and actions are being commoditized; we as consumers are being consumed.

Not only is online data commercialized more than ever before, but it is also increasingly being utilized for political and governmental purposes. The documentary described China's current surveillance system and how they use cameras in every location to track the behavior of their citizens. The Chinese government actually uses this information for a social credit system in which they can administer legal consequences to those who have low social credit. The incentive to behave well has improved crime rates in the country and bettered national security, yet it is still a controversial regulation because it infringes upon all the details of people's personal lives. Most people would argue that their private lives should be exactly that: private. The government doesn't need to know all the little specifics of what we do. This concept reminds me of a Black Mirror episode, Nosedive, in which the main character ends up obtaining a low social credit score as she obsessively tries to gain the acceptance of others. This fictional show, in a way, reflects reality. We are often unaware of how AI and other forms of surveillance capitalism are negatively affecting our daily lives.

#8

EOTO 2 - The Mainstream Media

Mainstream media is what we consider to be "established journalism outlets." Most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, agree on which TV channels and newspapers constitute as mainstream media. Some of these sources include ABC, CNN, and the New York Times. While most citizens are on the same page in regards to this, the content an individual consumes in their own daily life also plays a role as we tend to believe that the sources we spend the most time on are considered mainstream - even if that isn't the case for the general public.

One of the most significant points advocates of the mainstream media may bring up is that such media sources keep society connected. If everyone is getting their information from a plethora of different sources, it may be difficult for everyone to stay informed about the same important events. If there is, say, a devastating natural disaster, all of the mainstream media outlets are likely to cover it and we can all be updated on that current event. There are negative implications to this, however. 

If everyone gets their information from most of the same sources, there is a risk of people becoming stuck in an echo chamber. In the efforts to appear serious about public issues, mainstream media also often targets certain groups and frames them in a certain light. They tend to pose hard questions to lawmakers whose proposals may be costly, placing emphasis on the expense of their policies rather than their effectiveness. 

These sources misrepresent minorities and reinforce false beliefs as well. A research study was conducted to determine how the media portrays people in poverty. The findings showed that mainstream magazines lead citizens to overestimate the number of African Americans and women among the impoverished. Inaccuracies in the mainstream media can influence public opinion on these groups, ultimately influencing public action surrounding these groups. In the poverty case, this might look like decreasing support for African Americans receiving welfare because of negative stereotypes. It could also mean decreased support for Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asian Americans to receive welfare because the public may think that these don't need financial aid to the extent that they do.

As we progress as a society, we have to be aware of the mainstream media and how our views on those particular sources impact our behavior. This is especially important for younger generations because media as a whole has become totally accessible to us. In the past, mainstream media was considered to be the local newspaper. Then it was popular radio stations. Now, we can look up the New York Times and its website, physical newspaper, and audio services will all pop up in our search engines and it has become easier to choose which of the mainstream media outlets we want to follow. While this means opportunity for a diverse landscape of opinions, as consumers, we should be cautious that we don’t put ourselves in our own knowledge bubbles. It’s important that we make the choice to not limit ourselves to the mainstream media nor limit ourselves to only particular sources among the mainstream media. 

#7

Privacy, Online and Off

We, as a society, have gotten used to technology and data collection in our lives. When a "cookies" agreement pops up, we don't bat an eye at it. When an intriguing advertisement appears in our feed, we don't hesitate to click on it. In his Ted Talk about the permanence of online activity, Juan Enriquez says that "maybe all of you and all of us are very close to immortality." Enriquez calls attention to the real dangers of digital tattoos and brings up valuable lessons that we can apply to prevent these dangers. For instance, one simple action people can take is to avoid reckless online behavior. We should put careful consideration into what we post online.

A real-life example of someone's digital imprint drastically affecting their life is Darieth Chisolm's story. Her nude photos were posted on a website by one of her ex-partners. Situations like this can happen to anybody. Especially with the ease at which we can upload anything onto the internet, now more than ever, people find themselves victims to what Chisolm calls "revenge porn." Whether someone else posts a negative picture or we post a negative picture, that image stays with us forever. This non-erasable history oftentimes hurts our careers, relationships, and reputation. Even if people work to build their credibility back up, a past post or comment can influence opinions on someone for the rest of their lives. I remember a few years ago, director James Gunn got fired from Disney for uploading jokes about pedophilia on his Twitter. Although his fellow Guardians of the Galaxy colleagues advocated for him, much of the public still found a hard time justifying his actions and accepting that he was a changed man.

Another scary thought is that this situation does not happen only online. Privacy concerns have been increasing regarding physical behavior as well. Lawyer Catherine Crump's Ted Talk dives into how the police track citizens - threatening or not. They can look into almost every detail of people's everyday lives with advanced surveillance equipment. For instance, just with street cameras scanning license plates, the government keeps tabs on every single place each car is located throughout the day. This can infringe upon our private business, as officials know when we go to church, see our family, and conduct other personal tasks. This becomes an even more concerning issue when the government observes people's lives with a discriminatory agenda. This happened in New York City when the NYPD would drive police cars with surveillance systems by mosques to determine who was attending the Islamic services.

One way we can protect ourselves from such situations is to be careful what we display to the public. This could look like choosing not to post a photo we wouldn't want our employer to see. We can also invest in applications or devices that automatically protect us. In Christopher Soghoian's Ted Talk, he shares that companies like Apple and WhatsApp, by default, set messaging systems to use encryption to protect user's private conversations. While there seems to be a lot consumers and businesses can do, there is more controversy surrounding government involvement. It becomes a difficult subject to discern what the best course of action is because the government utilizes surveillance technology and social media tracking for national security purposes. Their use of such technology has helped them to catch terrorists and other threatening groups. The main concern with this is that the general public's privacy is compromised or jeopardized in the efforts to have such security. 

Ultimately, it's important that the government still respects and aids people in their digital privacy because unprotected online actions still subject the public to being tracked by groups other than the government. People like stalkers or identity thieves can more easily collect private information when security barriers are low. As we go about our days and browse online, we must be aware of what our physical and digital imprints may mean for us.

#6

 Antiwar Sentiments: Why We Never Hear of Them

In a society that pushes for free speech and the welcoming of different ideas, I'm surprised that we never hear about antiwar sentiments in the mainstream media. After taking a look at the two websites provided, I can make an educated guess as to why this is the case.

Many of the features on the websites criticize the current President, Biden. For instance, on ANTIWAR.COM, one of the spotlights is entitled, "Biden Makes Americans Targets in the Middle East, Then Campaign on Their Deaths." I can think of perhaps two reasons why content such as this would fail to make popular headlines. One is that those who are writing such articles may be worried about speaking against the government. Clearly, some of these headlines are directed strongly towards political figures themselves, not just their policies. Maybe the writers are fearful of what the government may do if they speak out so boldly. The only caveat with this is - as we learned in class - the government can't do anything unless the writer's content has the potential to threaten or harm someone. The second reason that came to mind is the government may be discreetly preventing such content from going past obscure websites. Especially with it being an election year, many politicians, including current ones in office hoping to keep office, are working to push their individual agendas and frame themselves in a positive light.

These websites also take a clear political standing. One of them is even called theamericanconservative.com. I feel that most mainstream media doesn't vocally lean left or right. Take Fox News for example: while it's common knowledge that the news channel has conservative biases, the anchors and its website never outright claim a conservative viewpoint. I think popular media avoid claiming a political side because putting out biased content could decrease credibility in the public's eyes. Perhaps it would be the same in regards to taking a strong antiwar stance. Since an antiwar stance goes against the current administration's actions, it could hold implications for whether the public views these opinions as credible or not.

Regardless of why we rarely hear of strong antiwar sentiments, I think it's important that these voices start being heard more prominently. It is not a light subject, as it quite frankly involves life and death. Thankfully, some people are speaking their opinion. Although they are publishing their work on more obscure platforms, they are still making way for other people to possibly feel more comfortable sharing their own opinions. As we've reiterated in class, speaking our thoughts on government action is a responsibility we all have. I commend those who strive to do so.

#5

Class Communication Technologies

After listening to my peers' presentations, I learned a lot about the evolution of technologies throughout history and the impact of those technologies on today's world. After multiple presentations, I also noticed patterns and themes among the introduction of each new technology.

Pop Culture & Historical Events

One pattern I drew was how emerging technology plays a huge role in pop culture and major historical events. The most interesting, I thought, was how the iconic guitar riff in the Rolling Stones' Satisfaction was recorded thanks to the cassette tape. The other more modern technology of SMS Messaging introduced the common use of abbreviations and slang. In the past decades, different generations have been identified by their slang. Oftentimes we can tell the age group a person is in just by the way they speak. We likely wouldn't have these generation-defining words or phrases if not for the invention of SMS Messaging.

New Technology is a Catalyst for Newer Technology

A second pattern I drew was how new technology is a catalyst for newer technology. For instance, the phonograph wasn't a completely original idea. It was actually innovated off of Thomas Edison's first model which used tinfoil instead of wax. Alexander Graham Bell took what Edison created and built off of it, later renaming it the gramophone. The same thing happened with many current Instagram features. Instagram wouldn't have short reels if it weren't for TikTok and it wouldn't have stories if it weren't for Snapchat. Other apps released new features and Instagram adopted them, helping it to turn into the social media app it is now. The interesting concept is that Instagram was created before TikTok and Snapchat, so its creation sparked a line of new features from the other two applications.

Globalization

Lastly, new technology plays a huge role in globalization. Our world gets more and more globalized every year. We seem to learn about globalization in every single class: economics, English literature, and music. It only makes sense that in our Media Law class, we can clearly see how globalization has influenced and has been influenced by communications technologies. As mentioned before, Instagram was one of the first of its kind. It started off as a way to share global travels with friends and family. This meant that people could share fun times with people all the way across the world. Another modern technology that has emerged in global markets is Netflix. Not only are multiple Netflix originals set in foreign countries, but Netflix also offers foreign work like Latin telenovelas, Korean dramas, or dubbed European movies. Netflix also looks different depending on the country you reside in. A certain movie may not be available in the USA, but it could be available in the Philippines. Netflix has now expanded to 190 countries, making it an incredibly globalized streaming service that allows people from different locations to bond.

#4

The First Radio

In today's society, most people simply think of "the radio" as a way to listen to music in the car. However, throughout history, the radio has ushered in many eras of media advancement, each with different implications.

The first radio was invented thanks to the discovery of electromagnetic waves. In the 1880s, the theory that these waves could travel at the speed of light and be received at a great distance was proven. After this scientific breakthrough, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi successfully broadcast the first transatlantic signal by the end of 1901. Now, this signal was only dots and dashes, and it remained Morse code for 5 years until physicist Reginald Fessenden sent the first long-distance transmission of human voice from his station in Massachusetts.

From there, the radio took off. It served as a novel mass communications medium, making it easier to reach large populations without the use of newspapers. This revolutionized the entertainment industry as hundreds of radio shows were created. There were comedies, dramas, world-events coverage - really everything that we see on TV today. In fact, big names like David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, and Jimmy Kimmel all began their careers in broadcast radio.

With this incredible new way of reaching others, the commercial industry was revolutionized as well. Along with products being advertised on radio stations, those who ran stations had to navigate how to hold an audience through a digital channel. They had to consider who would want to listen to each particular genre. They also had to consider when most people would listen so they could determine when it was best to air content. It was even discovered that certain features of a broadcast - such as the use of music - tended to attract listeners more effectively than other features. All of these ideas influenced the foundations for modern marketing strategies that we have today.

The years that the radio boomed were from around 1930 to 1955. These decades were referred to as the Golden Age of Radio. While there were many positive effects that the radio had on society, there were many concerns that had to be addressed with them. One of the most significant was the need for regulation. Radio was a business and with any business comes government policy on what it can or cannot do. This was especially a prominent concern in the US because early acceptance of radio was occurring right around WWI, meaning there were political factors at play. Congress eventually passed the Radio Act of 1927, which set standards for government licensing of frequencies and emphasized that broadcasts should be in "the public interest, convenience or necessity." The specifics of this act were better laid out by the Federal Radio Commission in the years to come. The Federal Radio Commission later turned into the Federal Communications Commission, applying rules to phones and TV.

Ultimately, we wouldn't have most of the technology that we have today if not for the radio. More importantly is we wouldn't utilize technology the way we do if not for the integral part the radio played in the entertainment and commercial industries.

Blog Post #3

The Eight Values of Freedom

Out of the Eight Values of Free Expression, the value of Stable Change was the most interesting concept to me. It is essentially the idea that discontent citizens who can freely speak their minds are more "stabilized" because they are less likely to express their grievances in a harmful way. This creates a safer society, while also aiding governments in detecting possibly threatening people. I feel this has been especially relevant in our digitalized society since there is a lot of controversy surrounding censorship laws that prevent open speech on social media. It piques the question of where to draw the line with censorship and whether censoring online content actually does more harm than good. Perhaps it's better to let people do what they want online since there isn't any direct physical damage that can ensue. In my opinion, there is also a plethora of nonsensical content that is uploaded to the internet, so someone's "venting" may simply blend in with all the other negative content that already exists. To me, this seems like it'd be a win-win scenario in which people get to voice out their views and the government can mitigate violent conflict.

In the second Supreme Court video, there was a point brought up about the Court's authority. It explained how ultimately the Justices can't act on an issue unless it is brought to them, meaning that for any issue they make a decision on, it's only done because that issue has become a significant concern to the public. I believe this dynamic is similar to the one between the public voice and the government. Allowing people to speak their minds will eventually signal to the government that there is a possibly widespread concern that they need to be addressing. The government may not know what needs to change for the sake of the people unless they're told by the people themselves.

The Stable Change value also reminds me of the stereotypical situation in which kids with strict parents tend to "act out" when they get older. Many people who grew up in a family environment that kept them from speaking their minds or holding constructive discussions now find themselves behaving in ways they never thought they would. Subconsciously, they are finding ways to make up for their lack of a voice during their childhood by making irrational decisions now. The same is true in society: those who aren't able to voice their opinions peacefully resort to violence to ensure their voice is finally heard.

Another value of freedom that caught my interest was the value of Promoting Tolerance. I wonder how society comes to a general consensus of what is right and wrong. After the class recitation on the Supreme Court, we learned about how morals change over time. At one point, slavery was acceptable and not uncommon. Now we consider it to be a complete violation of human rights. I'm curious as to what makes society a competent decision-maker if we have found ourselves to be wrong in history. Then again, we are all human, so we naturally have flaws and limitations to our judgment. 

Like Stable Change, this value also relates to the content of the second Supreme Court video. The government doesn't necessarily need to force change, because people tend to come to a general consensus on what is tolerable or not. That consensus then creates norms around different behaviors. In the end, the people are the deciders in what is acceptable, whether those decisions are made through norms or through what is brought to the Supreme Court. The Court - or other branches of government - is not fully responsible for any decision made in this country since it is the public that is responsible for claiming that a decision needs to be made in the first place and that there is a certain way that decision should go. I think we often forget this duty we have as citizens.

Ultimately, there are numerous factors to consider when regarding free speech and the role the government and people play in its significance. While there are both benefits and flaws to our current system of laws, I think it's important to hold continuous discussion on difficult subjects. We, as a country, have the power to change things in mighty ways. It has taken time to get to where we are now, and it will take time to get where we want to be. We must remain open-minded, yet dedicated to the values in our Constitution. As long as we strive to grow, our conversations as a country will only push us forward to what the future holds. The value of free speech is essential to include in those conversations.