My Final Blog Post - #11

 Our Relationship With Technology 

When deciding what to write this final blog post, a few too many ideas came to mind because it feels as if there will never not be something to talk about regarding technology and its impact on our world today. But, I was able to organize my thoughts and connect some to the Mad World Remix of Moby Video we viewed in class. This video is one that deserves to be watched multiple times so every small detail can be caught.

What first stood out to me was the small boy which you could say is the main focus of the video. He is the only person without a phone held up to his face and isn’t distracted by a screen in front of him, rather horrified at the reality of what the world has become. This made me think of my younger brother. He is 13 and just entering middle school. He’s always been one to kind of have a difficult time finding good friends his age, and I think technology, or his lack thereof, is making it harder. By not having a phone or access to apps children his age may all be using like Snapchat or Instagram, he may miss out on funny videos everyone knows, school events, or be left out when an activity is planned.

This is what makes the argument of technology so complex; it helps people to connect and makes it easier for people to communicate. But at the same time, this is only true if the technology is paired with already developed social skills. When children receive devices earlier and earlier, they have more freedom to meet people and share their thoughts, but an online image or conversation can be cleverly built. When it comes time to interact in person, they may feel nervous without the safety net of having however long they need to respond to a question or a filter to cover something they’re insecure about. Technology makes things too easy, so it becomes harder to exist in reality. 

I thought about this ongoing issue on a bigger scale when listening to the Morning Wire, a podcast I highlighted in my first blog post. I heard a few startling statistics in an episode from February that stated there has never been another time recorded in U.S. History where people have spent this much time alone. Social isolation is on the rise and turning to social media is both a response and cause of the problem. I didn't have access to social media apps other than Pinterest during the pandemic until about a year and half after. I turned to platforms like Youtube and Netflix, still feeling like everyone seemed so out of reach. But, I do think my lack of interaction online helped me to stay more reliant on healthier forms of entertainment like basketball and it made it easier to return to school.

But, when I downloaded Instagram my junior year, I found myself to be more aware of what the social expectations and trends were among my peers. I started to care more about what was being posted, afraid I would miss out on a joke or school event if I wasn’t checking online regularly. I did find my friendships to be less genuine when social media was added to the mix and if I saw something that made me feel left out, I chose to self-isolate rather than address the situation. I’m grateful to be in a healthier, less reliant phase, but I still struggle to limit my Instagram intake everyday. The episode also mentioned adding to this “loneliness pandemic” is the fact the marriage rate has gone down by a shocking 65% (9 minutes into the episode). I pondered if  technology added or detracted from this percentage and what has been its impact on dating.

Another aspect of the video that caught my eye was the clip at 2:03 where it illustrates the ease, but sad reality of online dating. I’ve always been skeptical of the idea of meeting someone online due to some healthy paranoia and just the fact I personally prefer meeting someone organically. Without immediately overthinking what someone may mean over text, I could rely on what I learned about them and their personality from our face to face conversation. But, the video made me think past my initial reservations, and more on how online dating could hurt any user. While depending on your app of choice, you can only see a certain amount of information and pictures of the other profiles, and the main attractive aspect of online dating is how many options you have. It can be nice to know that if it didn’t work out with someone, you have plenty of people you can meet and spend time to find who’s right for you. But, does this idea of never ending eligible candidates sabotage us in a way? 

The woman animated in the video switches instantly from man to man, not even really giving each a chance to truly introduce themselves. I began imagining, even if someone goes on a really nice date, they could leave thinking if that person is as good as who else awaits them on the app, instead asking if they liked the person. We may be missing out on true connections if we are too distracted with switching from person to person to see what we could have instead of what we want. I researched my theory further and a Psychology Today article discusses choice overload. It was found users who were shown less profiles on a dating app were more satisfied than a group shown more as they were less stressed and were able to prioritize quality over quantity. 

While I think the advancement of technology is inevitable and done with good intention, but it proves to have more harmful effects than expected. Its strengths can be taken to the extreme and negatively impact users' social development. Measures past small features like my time limits that can be easily ignored, need to be taken to ensure the future of a happier society. 

Blog Post #10

Reflection of EOTO#2 Presentations - Spiral of Silence

The concept Spiral of Silence is very fascinating and was presented by one of my classmates. Many of the theories and ideas we research for our second EOTO presentations could be seen in social media. Spiral of silence in particular interested me because it is one that occurs due to human nature and is only given strength with the addition of platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok.

While my classmate points out that the theory can be disrupted due to the fact that social media can give minority opinions a stronger platform and voice, social media can also discourage people from sharing their views with a wider audience. The Pew Research Center Conducted a study on the concept regarding another topic I’ve addressed on a previous blog post: the Snowden NSA whistleblowing case. 1,801 adults were surveyed, concluding that 86% of Americans were willing to have an in-person conversation about the surveillance program, and only 42% of Facebook and Twitter users were willing to post about it on those platforms. It also was found that of the 14% not willing to discuss the matter really at all, social media did not provide an alternate discussion platform they felt comfortable using. People only seemed to consider sharing their perspective in the media if they knew their followers would agree with them. Otherwise in-person conversations were the most favored form of communication when discussing government surveillance programs in general. 

Although this study was conducted in 2014 and may be a little out of touch due to how much social media has grown, I think it provided foundational insights into how the spiral of silence has evolved in our society. While people were comfortable speaking in person about the Snowden issue, the fear of being disagreed with on Facebook, Twitter, and any other type of online medium can be applied to in person interactions. Even if someone doesn’t have the intention of bringing an opinion to social media, someone else could choose to post their thoughts because of how normalized recording and sharing anything is, even if it isn’t yours to share. People may also feel discouraged to speak at all if they see their opinion is already unpopular from other posts. 

In the past, public opinion was distributed by the government, newspapers, and just by word of mouth. Now, that opinion is ever-changing and as loud as ever with the help of social media. Everyone has the opportunity to draw attention to their voice if they so choose. This makes it very easy for large groups to re-share messages and difficult for any opposing voice to be heard and it may feel easier not to say anything at all. 

The spiral of silence can be applied to understand how horrible events like the Holocaust occurred; the fear of having different opinions and isolation led to a minority being targeted, silenced, and almost destroyed. Social media needs to be monitored and used with an understanding of its negative possibilities to help emphasize dangerous opinions. 

Blog Post #9

The Age of AI

Seeing artificial intelligence gradually advance has been fascinating. While this level of technology is incredible, it’s extremely scary to see how it is being abused. This struggle is outlined in the documentary In the Age of AI.

When Lee Sedol was set to play the ancient chinese game “Go” against Google’s Alphago, he was confident in his abilities insisting technology wasn’t at the point of where it could outhink a human. He was sorely mistaken as the software was fed past “Go” games to study and learn from and was able to come up with moves humans had never thought of before. This shocked the world because it meant the limits of AI were being redrawn and its uses could only increase from there. Helping prompt ideas or find solutions is one thing, but taking over our positions in society is another.

Automation is now being referred to as a “silent job killer,” as efficiency is being prioritized and clerical jobs like human resources and finance are at high risk for being taken over by AI and software robots. If half of Americans can’t afford a surprise $400 expense like a car repair fee, they surely can’t afford to lose their job.  Another issue with the move to increase use of automation is how the wealthy are favored without thought. Capital are only ones with economic benefits as labor is being replaced by technology because they don’t have enough experience or money to get to a job that can’t be taken over yet. 

I work at a smoothie shop and just today we were busy my entire shift; I didn’t sit down once. The phone was ringing constantly and there was always someone in the store. Now that self-serve order kiosks are a normal encounter, I get nervous thinking of that device coming to my place of work. If we set up a kiosk or online AI helper for our phone pickup orders, it may increase comfort and convenience for some customers, but I have no idea how we could possibly keep up. At one point does efficiency go too far? While we can get a smoothie out in about a minute, sometimes it doesn’t feel fast enough and orders can pile up. If the small job of taking orders is replaced, it’sony matter of time before taking the smoothies and cleaning the store becomes replaced by technology. A machine could be invented to make smoothies and be at the register to take customers orders, but would it truly be better? Maybe orders wouldn’t be lost or smoothies spilled, but our store would lose its personality and connectivity. We make conversation with the customers, ask them about their lives, remember their orders, and try fun smoothie combinations. I don’t think efficiency is worth eliminating the human experience and interaction all together.

As mentioned in my previous blog post regarding a few TEDTalks I was asked to watch, I’m one to be skeptical of using Face ID and my household doesn't use an Alexa or similar device. I learned how police plate readers are used to monitor people, our phone calls and texts can be intercepted, and the government would prefer full access to these surveillance features. Watching the documentary only added to my fear of how my information can be collected and used. The video mentioned how in China devices are being placed on the street to record citizens and discourage jaywalking. Beyond jaywalking, it is a way to let citizens know the government is watching and has begun using the technology to create a “total surveillance state.” They can watch and choose to send people to political re-education camps that have reports of death and torture. This software also raises problems with discrimination as Muslims are being subjected to detainment and prison because data and surveillance says they're at risk of being part of terrorism. It doesn’t end there as some Chinese companies have begun to branch out to other countries; in Senegal a large stadium has been built by one said company as “help,” but really aims to maintain social stability.

For large companies like Google or Facebook, artificial intelligence has become an integral part of their platforms. They are mining the data of our lives as we leave behind digital exhaust or traces and they apply machine learning algorithms to learn user interests and predict what we would click on. They can use targeted ads as they learn our thoughts, what we want, need, what our friends like, etc. In 2004, Google was reluctant to reveal their revenue/engagement numbers showing how much they had increased after using the software. Sure they may not have wanted other companies to begin competing with them by  adopting the technology, but hiding the data collection from users is not acceptable. Shoshana Zuboff explores the complexities of this idea further in her book and explains in the documentary “we thought we were searching Google, we had no idea Google was searching us.” Swaying users buying decisions, habits, political perspectives, and directing them towards what only appeals to them is dangerous. Sadly, “technology has become a tool of control, not transformation.”

Blog Post #8 - EOTO Terms & Concepts

 What is a Whistleblower?

In 2002, three women were named the “Person(s) of the Year” by TIME magazine who were whistleblowers within the large organizations of the FBI, Enron, and WorldCom. Why were their actions recognized and praised by some?

A whistleblower is ​​”an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct.” While the term first only applied to government employees, it can now refer to private company employees. Would we all agree it is a good thing when the wrongdoings of a company are exposed and hopefully amended? A positive of the choice to whistle blow is the fact commitment to the public is recognized and remains. In fact, fraud detection is increased through this action as the majority of fraud is detected initially by tips provided by employees.

Unfortunately, whistleblowing is only justified if it meets certain requirements and there is possible or likely retaliation from the company exposed. This “occurs when an employer (through a manager, supervisor, or administrator) fires an employee or takes any other type of adverse action against an employee for engaging in protected activity.” This risk can lead some to go to extreme measures to escape the backlash after whistleblowing. One example is Edward Snowden, who left the country and has been living in Russia for the past decade.

Snowden was working for the NSA in Hawaii during 2013, observing electronic data collection and found it rubbed him the wrong way. He stated, "We had stopped watching specific terrorists, and we had started watching everyone just in case they became a terrorist.” He traveled to Russia in hopes of getting to Ecuador, but U.S. officials canceled his passport after he copied and shared files with American journalists of the NSA's top-secret surveillance programs. He was charged with being in violation of the Espionage Act as it was believed by some, he caused significant harm to our nation and our allies. 

This concept can involve a huge power struggle as lower-level employees, with usually lower income, may feel like they have less power to effect change and report the wrongdoings of staff with higher tenure they see. When new to a job, employees understandably, don’t want to do anything that may jeopardize their position and sole income, so they will choose to stay silent out of fear. To help battle this situation,  it has begun being recommended organizations start a special training program to instruct how to communicate reports of wrongdoing and feel more at ease to do so. If recently hired, an employee may also care less about the organization's reputation and just not care enough to report any misconduct they may come across.

Whistleblowing can also be influenced by the bystander effect, which means when there are more than one witnesses to a wrongdoing, each witness’s likelihood of blowing the whistle goes; due to the diffusion of responsibility, everyone assumes their individual responsibility is decreased because someone else who saw the incident will take care of it. I'm going to give you a hint: no one took care of it. 

While Snowden’s charges still stand, many look down on his actions, call him a traitor, and believe he should return to the U.S. and be held accountable, times are changing. Now years after his actions, whistleblowers have protection through agencies and laws that encourage diversity, outreach, and support for employees. Some assisting offices and acts include the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, The U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration, The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, and ​​The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. A huge step in the right direction was taken in 2015 when the U.S.A Freedom Act was rewritten to prohibit the bulk collection of phone records by American citizens.

There will always be criticism against the choice to whistle blow and it will likely remain a risky option even when it is the only solution and for the greater good. Thankfully there are consistent efforts to improve the government and large companies' transparency with Americans. We can hope they lead us towards a time where whistleblowing isn’t necessary as often and misconduct is not hidden from the public eye.

Blog Post #7

Has Surveillance Technology Gone Too Far?

Watching TedTalks based around surveillance technology made me more aware of the immense data collection taking place all around the world. I, like any other person, hold a normal amount of paranoia towards technology; when cookies show up at the bottom of a website I opt out of as many as possible, we put camera covers on our laptops at home, and do not use an Alexa to help our life become “that much easier.” While I didn't understand the truth and facts behind these precautions, these videos only further solidified my determination to uphold them. A year or so ago, my mother gave me her old phone and it was a model that had the option of using Face ID. For some reason I felt hesitant to take advantage of the feature and have just never set it up. I didn’t feel like my phone needed to have an accurate scan of my face and I didn’t mind typing in my passcode even if it was technically “less efficient.”

Catherine Crump spoke about how surveillance features and police license plate readers are being used to collect data. Phone companies can create and sell entire detailed profiles of technology users without their knowledge. People in the United Kingdom are being put on watch lists and accused of pre-crime after law enforcement tracks their vehicles to learn about their routines and assumes things. I thought I lived in a country where everyone has the right to be “innocent until proven guilty,” but now we need to be paranoid of our search history and the places we drive to in case someone watching deems us suspicious. When did we make the switch to the belief “guilty until proven innocent?”

I was surprised to hear from Christopher Soghoian that government officials were against the democratization of encryption and surveillance technology.  Soghoian explained how wiretapping is prevented by Apple and Whatsapp by default and it’s difficult for the government to observe people or gather data when they deem it necessary. They themselves must use technology daily to communicate from their platforms or for work and could be subject to hackers. It can be valuable to collect information on individuals who show signs of possible violence, destruction terrorism, etc. But, monitoring everyone closely just in case they could show signs of being a danger to others or our country, is not ok. Wiretapping is risky, and open to all who may choose to take advantage of it; if something is wire-tap friendly everyone is vulnerable, not just dangerous persons. Surveillance features can be used to access large figures or everyday people and it isn’t guaranteed the hackers responsible will always be caught. Since surveillance features come at such a huge cost, the government needs to respect the public’s privacy preferences and discontinue the reliance and collection of data.

In class we have discussed using VPN services on our devices to encrypt our data and clearing your history and cache to clear all of the cookies, viruses, and trackers that have been built up on your devices from visiting websites and such. We can take small actions by covering our cameras and choosing not to accept cookies, but there is a lot of data retrieval going on behind the scenes we may never see or know of. It scares me to think of how simply clicking on a clothing website could lead to me getting hacked or my information being sold and used to send targeted advertisements my way. Larger action can be taken through governing in city councils and advocating for the information collected from people to be disposed of, which was suggested by Catherine Crump. Unfortunately, this opinion isn’t shared by the government, as discussed before. Living in a democracy gives us the responsibility to voice our opinions as it’s our job to check the government's power. I believe many would agree that what is taking place crosses the line, surveillance technology is being abused, and our privacy is being violated.

Blog Post #6

 Anti-War Voices: Why don’t we know about these sites?

As an eighteen year-old voting in her first presidential election soon, it can be disheartening to take time to learn about the current state of our country. We face many problems in the United States and everyone has their own opinion. But sometimes, it feels only certain voices are being pushed into our view. I enjoyed being tasked with visiting the sites ANTIWAR.COM  and The American Conservative because I had never read about events and politics in such a blunt form. 

The American Conservative is organized similar to most news websites, featuring the most recent published articles upfront. Once I had clicked on the first article, I could tell it was un-filtered, with the piece’s short description reading "Biden's snap press conference paraded all his weaknesses before the nation—but don’t expect the Democrats to do anything about it.” Being titled “Biden: Survival of the Unfittest,” already gave me the impression the article would be far from subtle, I just didn’t expect the amount of criticism it featured. I’ve had conversations with friends and family about politics in the past, but I often run into some hesitation because I am afraid I’m not educated enough or someone who disagrees with my thoughts will hold anger towards me. The author of this article, and the rest of TAC’s contributors, don’t seem to experience this fear. The author calls out the president's memory and uses harsh words sprinkled into political commentary.

I liked the line “different but compatible ways” in The American Conservative About Us page when referring to the website's founders’ views on conservatism. A large part about being involved in conversation is disagreeing with others, and with that comes the risk of being widely shamed or looked down on. It isn’t often people leave a conversation without attempting to convince the other people to side with their view instead of just accepting their difference in opinion and moving on. The site’s creators aim to not only check the government’s power, but conserve our values. Even TAC’s founders don’t share the exact same views, but found enough common ground to create an institution and start a national movement.

ANTIWAR.COM's layout consists of headings for different countries and continents with stories relating to them along with a highlighted articles section. Some of these articles are published directly to AWC, others are linked from other sites with similar missions. One being The Libertarian Institute, whose About Us pages simply reads “Whatever it is, we’re against it.” They feature articles with critical, while also sometimes humorous titles, giving views on current global issues. 

While anyone would think they had the right to share these strong opinions with the world if they are confident enough to do so, that has not been the case in the past. When the Sedition Act of 1918 was in place, private persons were being punished, many being anti-war activists, for publishing anything negative or false about the government. While that law is no longer recognized, recently when it was found our president was working with social media companies and censoring users, some similarities can be seen between the two times. Websites like the three discussed above most likely would not be enjoyed by our president and his supporters, so it is not surprising they aren’t very well-known or more popular.

As Professor Smith pointed out in a class discussion, if twenty five students can’t figure out if our country is at war, that is a problem. These obscure sites may be the only platform that will give a clear, unfiltered perspective and prove to be helpful. Especially if their observations are difficult to face and expose the need for change.