Final Post: Relationship with Technology

     I think my relationship with technology is relatively healthy, aside from the amount of time I spend on a screen. I can admit that occasionally, I’m one to find myself on my phone for hours at a time. Usually, this occurs on TikTok, as I am thoroughly entertained by the content that the algorithm provides on my feed. However, I think I’m good at managing the information I find online and taking the things I see with a grain of salt. If I find one perspective of a current event or news story, I’ll investigate its legitimacy and find other points of view. I understand that information gets spread on social media so fast that it may be untrue or incomplete, so I prioritize confirming information I learn about from sources. It is something I try to be very cognizant of, and encourage other people to do so, too.

    One of the biggest issues I feel affects most people concerning technology, especially on social media, is its correspondence with mental health issues and self-esteem. Social media influencers and prominent figures often only show the most ideal parts of their lives, promoting a lifestyle that’s unrealistic for most people. Whether it's with luxurious homes or cars, visual appearance, or lifestyle, the standards set by influencers are difficult to attain, and I believe it contributes to mental health. The National Library of Medicine even conducted a study aligning with these ideas, which found that adolescents with high social media usage had lower self-esteem. I figure this belief may come from disappointment in oneself for being unable to meet these standards, or jealousy surrounding them. I know I personally find myself admiring people online, wishing I had something they do. Some studies support this point as well, by understanding the amount that people compare themselves to others online and the effects of it, like low self-esteem. Clearly, these factors could highly contribute to poorer mental health. 

    My digital footprint is something I’m very mindful of, and I’ve had it for many years. Growing up in athletics I was always told to watch what I would post because coaches looking to recruit me may check my socials (which is true, my coaches do follow my social media platforms and interact with things I post). I make sure that my content is very PG. I try to promote a positive lifestyle, I don’t use profanity, and use the test where you consider what your grandparents would say if they saw your post. I also aim to be as authentic as possible. Technology can be such a positive tool to keep up with friends and family, which are some of the main reasons that I use it. I think it has become a huge part of today’s society, people are almost completely dependent on it to be successful. Technology enhances entertainment, informational resources, communication techniques, and innovation. But, with that being said, people do need to remain mindful about how it is being used and the dangers of it. Responsibly using technology is critical because of how powerful it is. 

The Age of AI

     

The video on the age of AI was highly engaging and brought attention to ways technology is being used without much public knowledge. Many of the experts featured throughout the video were concerned with the use of AI, and warned of its growing power in society. Much of the conversation was focused on the use of AI as a modern surveillance technique, constantly gathering and storing data about private details of our lives. 

Yoshua Bengio made one of the most shocking points in the video: that AI will benefit the people who can control it. Those people with the power and ability to control the AI systems are going to dictate their benefits and harms. This information was shocking, especially considering that so much of our information is already in the hands of very powerful people. China was named in the documentary for being almost a complete “surveillance state” with cameras placed everywhere, and noticeably enough to remind common people that they are being watched. China has some of the most advanced technology, but
in the video, Amy Webb mentioned that fifty-eight other countries are considering using the type of software that China uses. This is obviously concerning because these types of extreme techniques being used to intrude on people’s personal privacy are being spread. I wonder how soon it will be for other established countries to follow in their footsteps. 

Fortunately, information about the use of AI and its powers has gained more public visibility in recent years. This has encouraged people to advocate for stronger privacy laws and a stronger understanding of the information that companies hold. For example, the California Privacy Law (derived from the California Consumer Privacy Act) was released this January. Components of the legislation include the “right to know” what information a business collects, how the information is used and shared, opting out of sharing information, and the right to delete some of the collected information. Hopefully, this type of progress will continue as AI advances and spreads more efficiently. 

Watch the documentary! It was very insightful: In the Age of AI

EOTO 2 Reaction: The Illusory Truth Effect

 The Illusory Truth Effect was one of the most interesting topics I learned about throughout our second group presentation project. This effect occurs when the repetition of certain information causes the brain to interpret it as more truthful, even if that information is false. The more times that a concept is repeated, it seems to seem increasingly truthful. The presentation gave us great examples of how this occurred within topics we’ve experienced, like when Donald Trump continuously stated that the Middle East was preparing deadly weapons. 

One of the reasons I found this concept so interesting is that repeating information, especially in media or politics, can be used as a form of rhetoric. Repeating points within speeches is a strategy that people find effective, making that speech more compelling and memorable. As I learned more about this concept, I began to question whether repetition as a rhetorical device was actually strong enough to make people believe those points, which is strongly related to the Illusory Truth effect. I wonder if the same things that make repetition so strong in public speaking and messaging are the same factors that make information so believable throughout instances of the Illusory Truth Effect. If I had to guess, I’d say they’re extremely comparable. 

However, I think it is critical to remember that just because someone is ingesting the same message from a source many times, it doesn’t mean that the information is truthful. Because repetition puts such strong emphasis on points of a speech or claims made in the media, some people might be automatically inclined to believe them. Investopedia adds that repetition also strengthens pathways in the brain to access certain information that people have heard many times, and people begin to associate familiarity with truthfulness. Ultimately, the Illusory Truth Effect would be beneficial for everyone to be aware of to make sure that they continue learning about topics that they may feel comfortable with.

Section 230 of the CDA

    Section 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Agreement) has been a controversial policy recently. It originally was a layer of protection for social media and other online platforms from being held responsible for the content that its users upload. It determined that the individual users of the platforms are the publishers of the content, not the actual platform itself. In other words, even though content gets posted on these platforms, they are not considered the producers of that content. 

The legislation specifies that the platforms are able to freely police their sites and the content posted upon them according to their guidelines, so they have the right to choose what material can stay up or be taken off. 

As a result of these parameters signifying the identity of social platforms in relation to the content displayed by them, the platforms are able to avoid legal troubles concerning more sensitive material. Therefore, online companies aren’t liable for harmful content, and they can’t be punished for failing to remove content that they choose not to.

While this policy can be beneficial for companies so that they aren’t constantly having to deal with the consequences for their irresponsible users, there have been some blurred lines when considering what content is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lawsuits have arisen concerning this legislation and left people questioning if it needs to be changed. 

Two very recent cases concerning Section 230 are Google v. Gonzalez and Twitter v. Taamneh. Google v. Gonzales came first, where the argument was that Google and its platforms promoted ISIS and allowed them to form new recruits because its algorithm encouraged it by displaying similar content to people who wanted to view it. It claimed that because of this accessibility to terrorist content, Google could be liable for some of the attacks. The court ruled that Google could not be held responsible because these posts were made by third-party users, and were therefore protected by Section 230. 

Twitter v. Taamneh was a similar case but yielded a different result. In this case, the claim was that Twitter failed to remove accounts that were associated with and supporting ISIS. The plaintiffs then claimed that because of the activity on these pro-terrorist accounts, contributed to and influenced activity from ISIS supporters. Despite the similarity of the cases, the court ruled differently here. It said that Twitter could be held responsible for “aiding and abetting” an act of terrorism. Two very contradictory outcomes for two similar cases show the uncertainty of Section 230’s policy and confusion with its limits and abilities. 

The Department of Justice is looking for clarification surrounding Section 230 and actually uploaded “areas ripe for reform” within the legislation. The topics that seem most critical to discuss are how online platforms address harmful content, clarify the federal government's involvement concerning “unlawful” content, promote competition for platforms willing to better enforce Section 230, and allow greater transparency with platforms and their users. Hopefully, addressing these areas of concern within Section 230 will give a more clear idea of what content is harmful, and how companies are supposed to act accordingly toward content violations. Because so many people use online platforms so frequently, it is important to get these parameters figured out as soon as possible. 

Do I Even Have Privacy?

    Digital privacy is something that everyone needs to be aware of, and quickly. However, awareness likely isn’t enough for people to maintain their online autonomy, as surveillance and tracking methods have integrated just about every system in our current society. 

We’ve learned about tracking, data mining, and tracking malware through social media platforms. This information is more widely known now, thanks to cases like Smith v. Facebook, which has given people insight into how often their data is being tracked and used without much public knowledge.

Yet, the government and other digital software companies have integrated other surveillance and data-capturing systems into many other areas of our lives as well. For example, the Ted Talk by Christopher Soghoian mentions that cell phone networks and companies had goals to achieve surveillance as a primary focus. These systems allow wire-tapping to be possible, which can intercept our personal texts and calls. Anyone can hack into the surveillance systems on these networks, and the Chinese government did exactly that in 2009. 

Catherine Crump’s Ted Talk highlighted that policing systems have been using license plate tracking devices, which have kept data about things we have been doing in our personal everyday lives. This could be the stores we go to, the churches we are a part of or even protests that we’ve been in.

    Facial recognition technology has also been advancing and being incorporated into our lives. Juan Enriquez’s Ted Talk discusses how face.com, a facial recognition technology that had claimed to identify 18 billion faces, was bought by Facebook. We are being tracked just about everywhere.  

These issues highly impact people like me because so much of our lives are online. We’re constantly on our phones, or else we’re on a computer for work and school. We mindlessly accept companies’ terms and conditions, where we should be looking to check how much of our information is being taken and if it’s being sold to a third party. Our information is always being absorbed and used!

I believe the government definitely needs to add some regulations for personal privacy, both in online spaces like our phones AND in public, like with public cameras. Like Soghoian mentioned, it might make it harder for police to catch the bad guys, but it would help ensure that people who aren’t supposed to have access to our personal information can’t get it. The issue is that I don’t know the best way for it to be possible… especially since so much of our personal information is already stored in some database that I have no idea about. 

Anti War and The American Conservative: Get to Know Them

    My initial reaction when I consider the reason that voices similar to those on The American Conservative and Antiwar.com are constantly hidden from the public is that the information that these sources share is pretty scary. Informative outlets like these expose our government of deceiving its people and operating without most common citizens having any awareness of what is going on behind the scenes. 

    For example, one article ca
lls out the American government for continuing to send billions of dollars to Ukraine despite the fact that our military has identified that achieving a victory isn’t in sight, and so money is basically being sent for no reasonable cause. Another page posted on the Anti.war site demonstrates that the United States hasn’t been compensating for Iraqi people who were subjected to torture throughout the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq. 

    For the political powers of this country, limiting the access of this information to the general public seems more practical. If people are able to recognize the hypocrisies of political lea
ders and systems, it might encourage more people to advocate for some type of democratic change or reform. 

    By misleading the public, the government is also able to uphold its schemes to profit off of people who are either indifferent about politics and foreign affairs, or just too lazy to learn more about it. Although most of the news found on these types of sources leaves American citizens in disbelief and disagreement, these affairs end up being allowed because people continue to support the leaders of their political parties instead of finding more information and protesting the things they disagree with. 

    Since these more seemingly “radical” types of media are more challenging to find, people tend to stop looking or just decide to listen to mainstream news outlets instead. I hope that eventually, these types of sites become more mainstream because everyone deserves to know the truth about how their government operates. 

Rogers Diffusion of Innovations With Emojis

Everett Rogers is famously regarded for his Diffusion of Innovations Theory, which he published in 1962. The purpose of the theory was to decipher the way that people adopt new products, services, or ideas; It shows how people grow to use these new things. He categorizes people who take up these new innovations into five categories, and it applies to almost every situation. Here is how it applied to emojis:

The pioneers of emojis were the first people to use them. Emojis were easy for pioneers to take risks with jumping onto because there was already a demand for new expressive techniques online. Emoticons were being previously used, but as technology was rapidly advancing, new ways to be expressive when using online platforms emerged as well. 

Early adopters are the next group of people to help promote a new trend. This is a larger group of people, which definitely was the case when people started using emojis. The fun colors, multiple icons, and silly uses for emojis were key points for why people would be so enthusiastic about using them. They were new, bright, and poppy little pictures that were a very new concept online. They made messages less boring. 

This also applies to why the early majority would pick up on the emoji trend. They were simple and different from what people had seen before. Typing messages in only emojis became funny. People were able to develop new lingo that others who didn’t use emojis wouldn’t understand as well. 

People who weren’t using emojis were definitely missing out. No one wants to miss out on things that the majority of culture gets to experience, especially when something like emojis gains traction outside of online chat spaces. Emojis became an element of pop culture and were put on merchandise, they were seen on anything from clothes to water bottles to pillows. This is likely how the late majority of the theory was almost forced to get on the wave of emojis. 

Similarly, laggards (the last group of the Diffusion of Innovations) had almost no choice but to understand emojis, at least a little bit. Generations showed different patterns of online usage, like Gen Z who seemed to immediately promote the emojis, compared to the Baby Boomers who may have been more reluctant to the new technology and trends. However, for everyone to be able to communicate effectively, it seems as if the laggards needed to get on board with emoji usage to fully understand younger generations.
WIRED writes that about ninety-two percent of all people online use emojis. That is an incredibly high statistic, and it proves that the influence of emojis is no joke.