WHAT WAS LIFE LIKE BEFORE THE INTERNET

     Throughout the last 25 years, the internet changed without ceasing--both in how it operates and how people use it for information and to express their opinions. The internet has made questions and answers ten times easier to find just at our fingertips. Many people think that this has simplified our lives but what was it really like before the internet? 

     First, in the pre-internet era, people's actions were usually not so public and usually were not remembered for long. When Andy Yen spoke in his Ted Talk, he made a valid point that today's generation has been taught to post on social media. With such postings, our actions stick with us. Today, people have an enormous amount of personal information online. A lifetime of emails can tell where people have been, who they have been with, and even what we are thinkings about. Yen said, "Our data now last forever, so your data can and will outlive you." Before the internet, letters and phone calls were often the things that could deeply damage reputations. However, today, we have millions of apps and websites that keep important information for the foreseeable future. 

     Furthermore, not only are websites and apps following our every move, but the government is too. This kind of tracking leads to a loss of privacy. Catherine Crump said in her TED Talk that one of the key technologies allowing governments to watch their citizens is the automatic license plate reader. These readers can be found all over cities and even on police cars. These trackers keep an extensive amount of information on where your car goes, who you ride with, and your daily life every time you pass a license plate reader. Before the internet, the government could not even keep this information. The internet allows us to store information in a void of nothingness and recall it whenever someone needs it.

     Finally, the internet has made it easier to attack people. Face-to-face conversations are scary for many people, especially difficult discussions. With the internet, people often respond without thinking, and they and can make their points quickly and cheaply. An Insider article by Mariel Loveland stated, "61% of teens preferred texting their friends, vide-chatting, or using social media over in-person conversation." With it being easier to talk online, the worldwide web can then be hell for some people. Cyberbullying is at an all-time high, and this can only occur on the internet. Darieth Chisolm talked about how 1 in 10 women under the age of 30 has experienced their explicit photos being shared online. This is a term Chisolm talked about called "revenge porn." Instantly, explicit photos can be shared all over the internet in just seconds. Before the internet, those photos would be lost or have limited circulation. 

WHISTLEBLOWER

     Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 to protect federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report activities they believe constitutes a violation of federal laws or regulations. If a federal employee considers an action by another federal employee or officeholder is illegal or unethical, the Whistleblower Protection Act protects his or her identity. Some states have similar laws.

     In 2020, a federal employee filed a complaint claiming that President Trump did something wrong in a July call with the leaders of Ukraine. This person claimed the protection of his or her identity under the Whistleblower Protection Act. As of now, this person has not been publicly identified, but the complaint put things in play that led to others giving testimony before Congress about Trump's actions regarding Ukraine. 

  
     Another famous whistleblower is was Edward Snowden. He leaked highly classified files from the National Security Agency. He leaked information from the NSA that the United States was spying on us from our cell phones to the internet. However, Snowden did not seek protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act. 

     Sometimes the information from whistleblowers makes people afraid; other times it makes people angry. However, whistleblowers may provide information to the public that we can't get any other way. 

THE AGENDA-SETTING THEORY

     Agenda-Setting Theory was first articulated in 1972 by UNC-Chapel Hill professors Dr. Maxwell McCombs and Dr. Donald Shaw. They published results from a survey that went out to North Carolina voters during the 1968 presidential election. The survey found that the issues of greatest importance to those North Carolina voters were the same ones that the media said were the most important.

     These results were interpreted to mean two main things. First, the media shapes what voters think are the most important issues in political campaigns. Second, when the media covers some issues more than others, then those issues being covered rise to the top of the public's mind, whether they were there in the first place or not. Stated more broadly, the Agenda-Setting Theory was born on the idea that mass media plans or creates an atmosphere for what the public should care about. 

     The main problem with this theory is that it is hard to measure. There is already a funky relationship between the public and the media. With there being so many media sites, many people only choose one or two, (and use those to confirm what they already believe--that's confirmation bias) so it is hard to change their opinions or ideas. 

     There are three types of agenda-setting. Public agenda-setting occurs when the audience gets to choose the program for which stories are covered. Media agenda-setting is when the media chooses the topics for which stories are covered. Finally, the policy agenda-setting is where both the media and the public choose which stories to cover. 



     In recent years, agenda-setting has been changing because of the impact of social media. That is because social media allows many more people to express their wishes about issues that they want to be covered. It will be interesting to see the evolution of agenda-setting and this particular theory will be over the next ten years. 

MY ONLINE PRESENCE

     
     My use of online presence is different from other people's, in my opinion. The only three platforms I generally use are Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube. I wouldn't say I have a large online footprint, but I do have some footprint. I often try posting to make people smile. I rarely post on Instagram and like every photo in my feed. For Snapchat, I post every once in a while, but not an overwhelming number. For YouTube, I subscribe and never post anything. Information visitors would glean that I like music festivals. 

     Since I rarely post, it would be hard to learn much about me from my feed. Indirectly, a viewer would notice that I like every single photo in my feed because I always just give a like. Also, people looking at my footprint would see I only follow friends, family, and celebrities. 

     I try not to give out my phone number and email. However, all my social media sites ask for that information. I gave it to them because they wouldn't let me finish my profile without entering a phone number or email address. 

     In the end, I believe social media makes people lonely and depressed for several reasons. First, social media makes it easier to bully. People are usually afraid of face-to-face confrontation, so what's the best way to confront someone? Over the screen. It's gotten so out of hand that we have our own name for it, cyberbullying. The second reason why it makes people lonely and depressed is that social media makes it easier for people to miss out on things. If you don't get invited to a party or to dinner, social media makes it easier to find out you didn't get invited. Finally, social media makes it easier to compare yourself to others. Social media has created this image of an "ideal" man and women in today's generation, and if you don't have that physique, you're not "perfect." 

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION

     Everett Rodgers published The Diffusion of Innovation in 1962. Rodgers theorized about how, why, and at what rate new technologies spread. My goal in this blogpost is to connect Facebook to Rodgers' diffusion of innovation theory. 

     Under Rodgers' theory, the "pioneer" or "innovator" phase would be the time when Facebook was meant only for Mark Zuckerberg's fellow students at Harvard. In this phase, the business wasn't even called Facebook; it was called Facemash. In these years, Zuckerberg developed the idea and created a prototype online. 

     Eventually, Zuckerberg hacked into Harvard's system, and he was forced to shut down Facemash. Zuckerberg next moved int go into what Rodgers called the "early adopters" phase. In 2004, "thefacebook," as Facebook was known then, spread to an audience of primarily college students at Stanford, Yale, and Columbia. These "early adopters" saw the value in Zuckerberg's invention, and they told their friends how cool thefacebook was. Zuckerberg's "business" grew mostly by word of mouth. Gradually, people at other colleges started using this new technology. 

     By September 2005, Facebook was in its "early majority" phase. The site quickly expanded to over 800 college campuses and started making an impact in the high school network. Also, Zuckerberg dropped the "the" so the site became simply "Facebook." This was the time when parents of students and people in older generations began using the website. Rodgers called people who began using the product during this phase the "late adopters." 

     At first, only the younger population was on Facebook (during the pioneer and early adopter phases). When the late adopters joined in, all the Facebook users would be called the "early majority" under Rodgers' theory, as Facebook grew rapidly around the world. 
     The final phase in the Diffusion of Innovation Theory occurs when the late joiners begin using the new product or services. Rodgers called these late joiners the "late adopters." This is where I would put myself in regard to Facebook. I never really wanted to use Facebook. I just needed a Facebook page for college. Since it seemed everyone else had one and had joined Facebook groups, I thought I would, too.

     The final group, under Rodgers' theory" is called the "laggards." These are people who resist using new products, services, or technologies. Often, they never join in with others who were early or late adopters. Although my Dad uses a lot of technologies, he is a laggard when it comes to Facebook since he has never created a personal Facebook page. 

THE MOST IMPORTANT VALUE OF FREE EXPRESSION

     Of the eight values of freedom of expression we discussed in class, I believe that promoting innovation is the most important one. If a government/society fully protects and values the freedom of speech, then people are more likely to be more creative and energized. This is because, for you to develop a growing and vibrant community, you need innovation. 

     According to McKinsey & Company, "84% of executives say that their future success is dependent in innovation." Innovation is creating and implementing a new idea that can increase standards of living and opportunities. Change can lead to more significant opportunities by penetrating markets faster and connecting to developing markets more easily. 

     How would limits on speech and expression affect innovation today? First, people would be more afraid to put their words and ideas out into the world and marketplace. Limiting speech generates fear, and fear is the enemy of innovation. Second, people would be intimidated to spread the words and ideas they encounter in societies that limit expression and speech. New and sometimes controversial ideas and proposals need books, movies, films, and the internet to spread from creators to pioneers to early adopters under the Theory of Diffusion of Innovation. 

     With the freedom of speech we have here in America, we can innovate like no other country. The Pew Reseach Center surveyed 38 countries around the world to see which country had the biggest right to freedom of speech. In 2015 at the end of the survey, Pew Research found that "Americans are more tolerant of free speech than other nationalities." That is why I believe America is one of the most innovative countries ion the world. 
    

EMOJIS

     
     One of the most interesting presentations from the EOTO projects was the history of the emoji. I had never thought about how the emoji has gotten to be the emoji of today.

     The first emoji was sent in 1982 by Scott Fahlman. Mr. Fahlman used his creativity to combine the parenthesis with the colon to create :) to symbolize happiness and send it via email. 

     This move to expand emojis continued later with Japanese designer Shigitaka Kurita. In 1999, Kurita wanted an easier way to communicate, so he used visuals to create the first emoticon keyboard. Kurita is considered to be the "father of emojis."  

     Emojis picked up again in 2009 when Apple engineers Yasu Kida and Peter Edberg created the 625 emojis for Apple. Apple then wanted its own keyboard so, in 2011, it added an official keyboard to its phones. Over the past eight years, Apple has steadily been adding more and more emojis, from the gay pride flag to including many more races and ethnicities. 

     Eventually, Fred Benenson translated the whole Moby Dick book to Emoji Dick. Also, the Museum of Modern Art in New York City holds the original emoji collection.

     Today, almost everyone knows what an emoji is. Many businesses are using them to connect with their customers. Who knows what new emojis we will have in the future? The only limit is our imagination.

MAD WORLD REMIX OF MOBY VIDEO

     Of the people from age 18 to 44, 80% check our cell phones once we wake up and 44% sleep next to our phones. This age group averages spending 15 hours a week on our cellular devises. This video depicts one of our main problems in today's society: our digital "addiction." 

     The film, "Mad World Remix of Moby Video," begins with a conglomeration of adult cell phone addicts glued to their phones, bumping into and ignoring the main character, a small boy who seems to be the only person without a cell phone. The adults fall into holes and run into each other because they don't look up long enough to know where they are going. The young boy zig zags through stampedes of people and cowers in people's shadows. 

     Two scenes in the film stood out more than the others. The first was when the whole family sits at the dinner table. They all have cellphone, including a baby. When I was younger (starting at about age 12), I would always have my phone with me. I would bring it wherever I was to play games and talk with friends. I remember my father always yelling at me and my brother to put our phones away. After seven years, I can say the digital addiction has taken hold of my Dad--at least some of the time. Family meals should times to converse, and when you really listen. You shouldn't have any cellular phone out at those times--as difficult as that may be.

     The second scene was when the woman used her phone to make the photo of her turn from sad and ugly into happy and beautiful. Today, especially with Instagram, everyone is trying to impress everyone else by how they look rather than making what is inside more beautiful. Women have a beauty standard and men have strength standards based on what society has decided are the most desirable traits. Our digital addiction is reenforcing these stereotypes and is keeping us focused on what's perfect, and not what is good and healthy.

HOW FAR IS AMERICAN WILLING TO GO TO GET ACCESS TO CHINESE MARKETS?

     
      On October 12, 2019, The New York Times contained an article named "Politics and Sports Shouldn't Mix? They've Always Mixed." It's a story about how, over the past week, the National Basketball Association has been caught in a pickle. The general manager of the Houston Rockets sent out a tweet expressing support for the protestors in Hong Kong. The Chinese government was offended about this statement and threatened to make it harder for the NBA to promote basketball in the land of 1.4 billion potential customers. The head of the NBA released two statements, one in English and one in Mandarin Chinese. The problem was that the Mandarin statement was a lot more apologetic than the English. Some people criticized the NBA, saying the Houston general manager had every right to express his thought. Other people said supported the NBA by saying you can't ignore getting access to country with the biggest population in the world. 

     This is just the latest in the debate about how far is America willing to go to get access to Chinese markets. The American Conservative website posted an October 4, 2019 article by Pat Buchanan (who ran twice for the Republican presidential nomination) titled, "American Blunder: Throwing Open Our Markets to China," which argued that America has made three big mistakes in the past 60 years--one being that America has been too eager to do business with China. Buchanan wrote, "The third (mistake) was to throw open America's markets to Chinese goods on favorable terms, which led to the enrichment and empowerment of a regime whose long-term threat to U.S. interests and values is as great as was that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War" (Buchanan para 19). My sense is that Buchanan would strongly disagree with the NBA apologizing to the Chinese government and people in order to keep those markets open. 

     On the other hand, antiwar.com posted an article that took an opposite position. In a July 2, 2019 article by Doug Bandow, titled, "Blame America Too for Our Ruptured Relations With the Chinese," Bandow admitted that China had made many mistakes such as having aggressive threats towards other countries and keeping too much control over its society. However, Bandow wrote that the United States had made mistakes too in our relationship with China. He expressed a strong desire to have largely open markets between the US and China, writing, "Trade benefits both parties and is best kept free rather than excessively managed. Washington must decide what issues are broadly essential to our commercial relationship, especially given legitimate security concerns." I anticipate that Bandow would understand and agree with the NBA's wish to sell more satellite packages and jerseys to pro basketball fans in China, even if that meant dealing with a government that was being strongly protested in Hong Kong.

     So, in the end, will America play ball with China, or will we cancel the game?

FAKEBOOK

     

     Author Matt Binder wrote an article on Mashable entitled, "Facebook has a gaping loophole in its fight against fake news." Throughout the article, Binder examined how Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook company have tried to cut down the news that is "false" on its platform. However, people are still getting a lot of false news on Facebook, which shows Zuckerberg and his team have more work to do. 

     Some precautions Facebook took in 2017 including announcing "it was ending the ability for users to edit link previews" (Binder para. 8). Facebook thought this action would help deal with the fake news issue. Still, there have been links to glitches where you can still edit link previews. Binder provided a great example of fake news on Facebook when "Howard Schultz dropped out of the presidential race." Continuing to describe how Facebook took its time in shutting down this post contributed to many people not trusting Facebook to be a reliable source of information.

     I believe one major takeaway from this situation is that the inability to keep false statements off of Facebook and other platforms make peoples confirmation biases stronger. Too many people just look for information that will validate what they already believe. It's important for us to hear the truth, even if that information undermines what we have believed. This is a hard issue to deal with, but Facebook and other platforms are not doing enough to solve the problem.

SUPREME COURT

     On February 1, 1790, the U.S. Supreme Court's first session took place in New York City in the Royal Exchange Building. Since then, more than a hundred justices have served on this court. 
The main purpose of the Supreme Court in the Federal government is to create checks and balances. If the federal judiciary believes the other branches of government are breaking the law or violating the U.S. Constitution, these judges can exercise "judicial review". The main event that established judicial review (and what is considered to be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases) was Marbury v. Madison. 
     
     In this case, William Marbury wanted the federal court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, also known as a court order. Marbury wanted Secretary of State Madison to be required to file Marbury's commission to be a judge, as directed when John Adams was President. John Marshall, who was Chief Justice, wrote the court's opinion on February 24, 1803, that while the law stating Marbury should get his commission was illegal, the Federal Courts could decide if the other branches of government violate The Constitution.Until this decision, it was not clear whether the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) had this power.

     Another famous court Supreme Court cases was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. According to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

     In the 1890's the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson that there could be racial discrimination so long as the facilities were "separate but equal." In the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case, attorney Thurgood Marshall argued that separate facilities were always unequal. Chief Justice Warren wrote in a unanimous opinion that the Plessy case was wrong and denying people the right to use facilities because of their race violated the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. So, the Brown vs Board of Education cause overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson and opened the way for later challenges to discrimination based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 

FIRST AMENDMENT

     The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But when speech promotes violence or is "extreme," can we pull the plug on it?

     In the past year, 21 mass deadly shootings have occurred in America, averaging one shooting every 15 days. At least three of these shootings, like the one in El Paso, have been linked to the website, 8chan. 

     8chan was set up in 2013 as a message board dedicated to "extreme free speech." Users create discussion pages or "boards" for hundreds of people to offer comments. Although 8chan, itself, doesn't violate any laws, some people believe the content on this website is too much. Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, stated, "8chan is almost like a bulletin board where the worst offenders go to share their terrible ideas. It's become a sounding board where people share ideas, and where these kinds of ideologies are amplified and expanded on, and ultimately, people are radicalized as a result."


     At the moment, some people believe that 8chan may have fueled the hatred that led to some of these mass shootings. They want to block 8chan's online presence. The problem is that this website isn't directly inciting violence, but it is encouraging "extreme speech" and that may include words that could lead others to commit violent actions. A hard question is: does 8chan (or any other website) have the right to attract people who will incite other people to violence? Stated another way: does 8chan have the right to create and maintain a website where the baseline of violent ideas and actions start and grow? However, how do we draw the line of where "creating a baseline of violent ideas or actions" begins?

At the moment, some people believe that 8chan may have fueled the hatred that led to some of these mass shootings. They want to block 8chan's online presence. The problem is that this website isn't directly inciting violence, but it is encouraging "extreme speech" and that may include words that could lead others to commit violent actions. A hard question is: does 8chan (or any other website) have the right to attract people who will incite other people to violence? Stated another way: does 8chan have the right to create and maintain a website where the baseline of violent ideas and actions start and grow? However, how do we draw the line of where "creating a baseline of violent ideas or actions" begins?