Final Blog Post

 

Technology is all around us, it's become a part of us, so integrated into our daily lifestyle. Technology develops alongside our understanding of it, and has been "growing up" with Generation Z. Many are unsure of how to manage their technology usage or online awareness, and others sign up and scroll without a thought of concern. I have to say, I wish I had a more thorough understanding of technology when I was in middle school, right around the time I started posting embarrassing content of myself online. While nothing in my online presence tarnishes my reputation in any way, there are things I wish could be removed from the internet that simply cannot. I know other people who feel this way, wishing they'd understood what happens to their personal data once posted online, but then there are others who still haven't thought about this.

I think I have a somewhat unhealthy relationship with technology. I spend many hours a day on my phone. Sometimes I realize this, get up, and start a different activity, but other times I become aware of how long I've been on my phone and make no such changes. This isn't the case for most apps, just ones where I have a constantly updated, personalized feed, like TikTok or Instagram. These apps are two that concern me the most for myself and others my age, and around my age. TikTok is insanely addictive. There can't be an argument presented against that, as millions of youth around the country spend hours a day on the app, and often feel like it's impossible to pull themselves away like I stated. I do not know many people who casually use TikTok- they are either rarely on it or just use it to record videos, or they're on it many times a day and find themselves sucked into the endless feed of videos tailored specifically to them. This raises opportunity for an opposing opinion, as one could argue that these videos are serving as their media entertainment, rather than watching TV. 

What makes the two activities differ is that TikTok is designed to hold your complete attention, and only show you videos that the app knows you'll enjoy, because of your data storage. TV cannot suck you in at the same level; no matter how much you like your favorite show, it is not designed to gain your specific attention like TikTok or Instagram reels. Instagram reels are pretty much the same thing as TikTok, with most of the videos being pulled from TikTok. Reels are a copycat of TikTok that emerged shortly following TikTok's success. Snapchat has also attempted to recreate TikTok's style of endless personalized videos. That's all evidence of how addicting TikTok truly is, with other mainstream giants attempting to gain the same usage for their app. I am focusing so heavily on TikTok and reels right now because I see it as one of the gravest wrong-doings in modern-day technological development. It has become apparent to me that these apps are in fact trying to create addictions to them, and since younger groups of the population are the most apt to these apps, it is they who are being targeted. Children, adolescents, and young adults like myself are the future of our society, and we must have a healthy relationship with technology to lead fulfilling lives and be equipped to appropriately utilize technology. The fact that I am able to digress so thoroughly yet am still aware of my unhealthy technology habits makes me worried for those who have yet to identify the problem, still off their radar. 

 I believe that technology does make me smarter but also stifles my opportunities for improving other areas of myself. In terms of concerns for misleading or unreliable information, I do not think technology is at fault for that. People in charge of operating certain aspects of technology such as those who create the morning news updates, press releases, or content creation are at fault for disseminating unreliable or misleading information. However, it is the viewers duty to ensure the information they digest to be reliable, truthful, and without bias though that may not be applicable in all situations. It is disappointing that we as the consumers must decipher what to trust, but it makes sense. Everybody in life is in the pursuit of their own happiness, and for some that pursuit involves deceiving others; technology does not operate for the greater good, and rather however the individuals utilizing technology want it to operate. 

While I've clarified that I believe my relationship with technology to be unhealthy, I'd like to point out that I have many positive uses of technology, but I just don't think those outweigh the negative implications of my personal use. I think this differs for my family and friends though I'm not positive. My mom is on her phone often and uses Safari and iMessage the most. Those do not have any unhealthy consequences for her, but Instagram may. My mom is big on Instagram and has never been on Facebook at all. I find that odd, but I believe it to have something to do with the level of privacy your photos have on the two apps. I feel like she may at times spend too much time on Instagram, but know that it is for entertainment purposes, as she doesn't heavily watch TV because the content doesn't interest her. Overall I'm gonna say my mom has a positive relationship with technology. This is generally the same for all other adults in my life, I don't perceive them to have an unhealthy relationship with technology. It is with some of my peers and definitely younger family members I see more indication of unhealthy technology use like myself. 

Technology must be taken with a grain of salt. The positive implications of different websites, platforms, entertainment services, etc may be obvious and endless, but the negative ones may not be so clear, and when they are can often be ignored. I think technology is a tool that can bring society to a higher level, but can also be responsible for our downfall if we don't start addressing the negative impacts it has.

EOTO #2 reaction

 Agenda Setting: what mainstream media wants you to hear, does not cover everything that's happening, shows that we don't see or hear everything shown in the media, shows how we should look deeper into the news we see, has spread onto social media, and then facts and opinions develop into propaganda.

Gatekeeping: media has the power to decide what goes through the gate, ability to shape public opinion and public discourse, gatekeepers have influence of what information to give to the public, political gatekeeping- the government promotes things they want you to see and censors what they don't want you to see, example: Hunter Biden laptop story.

Illusory Truth Effect: the more someone sees something the more they believe it, this is why propaganda is useful because it works, works best when you already have an idea of what it is and can perceive yourself as an expert, repetition is key.

Confirmation Bias: searching, interpreting, or favoring information that supports one's prior beliefs. 3 types- biased attention, biased interpretation, biased memory. Effects of confirmation bias- prevents objective thinking, influences decision making, influences who you associate with, how to combat conflicts. Bias- be aware of your biases, look at all information available, opposing views, be open minded and willing to change opinions, examples- election season.

Overton Window: the idea that the people decide what goes onto the media, constantly changing, depends on how sensible popular policy is, doesn't change quickly but depends what's currently going on. Politicians follow this window to be in align with the public, in accordance with what we care about.

Machine Learning and Ai: have exploded the last decade, companies use it to skew data and advertise to their consumer, ai has fully transitioned from just theory to now performing functions with large data sets like autonomous cars. Phones can track conversations and searches to give ads, capable to learn and provide analysis through convocational algorithms. Algorithms pull data to recognize patterns and respond accordingly, the machines cane take inputs and predict outputs, then the accuracy is judged, programmers test the limits of how much they can improve perception, cognition, and action of an ai.

False Flags

What's a false flag? It's a military or political action carried out with the intention of blaming it on an opponent. This is often done as a pretext for war, with nations staging attacks on themselves to receive the "go ahead" to attack. False flag operations are the dirty side of politics and war, and can have big implications as the actions to follow will only create more tension.

False flags are created so that a government can move forward with intended plans for an attack, but without backlash from their citizens; thus, creating a hoax for support. One example of this can be taken from Nazi Germany during WW2. Hitler was looking for a final straw before invading Poland, so staged a raid on the Gleiwitz Radio Tower. A short message claiming the tower was now in "Polish Hands" was broadcasted, and a body of a civilian dressed as Polish soldier was left behind. The next day, Hitler cited the attack among others in a speech, and instructed the invasion of Poland. This is one example of how false flags can have large implications on society as a whole. When used in a time of intense turmoil and a multi-country war, a false flag can be the cause of millions of deaths. 

False flags are meant to be deceptive, their whole purpose is to create a lie. Due to this it is difficult to discern between a false flag operation and a false accusation. What people speculate will be based on how much trust they have in the source. This can have negative implications in the way that some people begin to speculate traumatic events, causing emotional harm for those affected by that event. An example of this would be someone claiming that a school shooting didn't occur, and is instead being staged for gun control reform.  

There do not seem to be any clear, positive effects of a false flag operation. These are created as a deception, so I'm not sure if I think that something created to deceive could become good to begin with, but if I disregard that and focus on just the implications-- I maintain that there are no positive effects of a false flag. All examples of false flag operations were relating to political or real life warfare. 

Since a false flag operation is specific to a certain situation they do not have the same implications each time. A false flag will ultimately always negatively affect those accused, and positively affect those staging the operation... unless they are proven guilty. As far as affecting different segments of the population like male/female, or gay/straight, if one is accused the inverse party would benefit. This, however can only be small scale as a specific entity is being targeted in an operation, opposed to everyone who shares that same identity. 

Since a false flag operation can be done on a large scale like in WW2, or on a small scale if someone was say, staged for murder, they can affect anyone. I cannot personally see myself being affected by a false flag operation, since I don't associate with shady business and have no enemies. Anyone who has enemies really, can be victim of a false flag operation. There needs to be a party targeting you for malicious reasons. While not necessarily a false flag operation, McCarthyism is of a similar nature. Somebody accusing you of an offense that is not true. Something like that is the only plausible way I see a regular citizen being affected by a false flag operation, unless of course our government enters war due to a false flag, then everyone is affected at once. You must have a keen eye to notice a false flag operation, and a strong stamina if you are going to attempt to prove it. 

Privacy Online and Off

 Privacy is something many don't often think about ensuring. After all you're on your phone nobody is looking over your shoulder, who is there to be worried about? Everyone in charge of what's on your phone. Internet browsers, social media apps, and texting and calling services are not truly private. While there are encryptions embedded into different technologies that ensure a certain degree of privacy, that's not across the board.

Apple is one of the most popular tech companies and most widely used for cellphones in America, or at least all of the places I've been. They proudly boast of their encryptions protecting your privacy on test, call, and FaceTime, and even claim they can't view that data themselves. That's nice, but why can't the whole phone be protected with encryptions? My FaceTime with my best-friend is safe, but when I open Safari and begin typing a Google search for what we just discussed, that data will be tracked. 

Tracked by who is a good question. Since companies like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok create a feed specifically for you, they track and save all of your data. Everything you watched, how many times you did so, what you liked and so on. Local police forces use license plate tracking technologies and they're installed all around you. Your local police department guaranteed has multiple pictures of you just driving around in your car-- doesn't matter if you've done anything wrong or not. The federal government is given and has all of this data in a large database. That's crazy. There is no need to store data on everyone "in case" it can be useful in the future. Collecting data on criminals is acceptable but data belonging to anyone else should be disposed. 

Something that freaks me out is the fact that Google had its server hacked. Google. The largest internet search engine that computes thousands of queries a second. If a company as established as Google can be hacked then anything can. Personal information such as race, age, political affiliation, being religious or non-religious, etc. should not be: a) sitting in a database piling up more information daily, b) able to be accessed by anyone other than the delegated employees at that company, c)given to the government or police upon unlawful request, d) collected by default rather than user-granted permission, or e) sold to third-party companies without user-granted permission. I dislike many of the things tech companies and applications are currently doing with my information and data, but it's already too late to backtrack. I have a digital footprint and it's big. I've posted embarrassing images and videos of myself that have been manually deleted by me, but can never be deleted from the internet due to data storing. 

I belive that the government should require all website, search engines, and applications to allow users to decide if they want their data stored-- if they want a feed tailored to them at the cost of their online privacy. I also think that the government and police departments should dispose of data containing exclusively lawful activity. I don't know what else to suggest because I don't see a feasible way of people truly gaining online privacy. Even if the government regulated all of these things and they were put into a user agreement when signing up for an app, there's still going to be a clause saying that the agreement is subject to change at any time, and what can we do about that? To protect yourself from these invasions of privacy I suggest creating an online alter ego, using none of your real personal information. This way you can reduce data being paired back to you across multiple websites/apps. We should all be worried about our privacy as we become more technologically advanced by the year. I do however belive that you cannot have true online privacy. 

Diffusion Theory

Diffusion theory is fascinating to analyze through the emergence of new technologies. Women's right to vote, automobiles, smartphones, everything ever invented has gone through this process, some with more fortunate outcomes than others. Electric automobiles are still a semi-recently invented technology, so I'd like to analyze its past, present, and future possibilities.

One of today's most mainstream movements is the environmental/climate change one. Since Earth Day's founding there have been warnings of catastrophic climate change, the efficacy of fossil fuels, and rising sea levels. This movement has a major support from Millennials and Gen Z due to celebrities and young protestors such as Greta Thunberg expressing utmost support. The problem of climate change is one continuously waged in our congress and governments across the globe. While true environmental change can only be accomplished by mass producers of carbon emissions to go on the decline, that would require international agreement which is tasking to say the least. Not to mention, many countries could be hurt economically from going green, and others simply don't place environmental damage as the top concern on their list. Budget plans to combat climate change are also often too expensive, thus creating turmoil between those opposed. The Green New Deal is an example of this. Due to all of this, individuals take matters into their own hands and make small changes in their day to day routine.

Some people only use reusable bags, never use plastic straws, and buy an electric vehicle if they can afford it. The first modern electric car debuted in 1996 the EV1 made by General Motors. While those who had purchased the car loved it, it was not being adopted by enough people and was discontinued. I don't believe this to be due to price and rather lack of care to convert to electric. In an interview with former workers for GM it was stated that they scrapped the car for an "immediately profitable" project and switched focus to Hummers and trucks instead of preparing for "future consequences". So while they were the first to create the efficient electric car, they failed in adaptation because people were not concerned enough for future consequences of climate change to purchase the vehicle. 

Currently Tesla is the biggest name for electric vehicles. Climate change seems to be pushed down our throats, and while that is not a criticism, it seems to have a percentage of the population deeply concerned, and the rest of the population turned off to the matter. Those early adopters of the EV1 I assume were early adopters of Tesla automobiles. I expect the younger half of the population to be purchasing electric vehicles at a higher rate than the older half of our population, therefore adopting the technology sooner however, I theorize draw-backs. Electric cars simply sell for a higher price than gas cars do. So I would assume those in the lower income ranges will be late adopters or not at all.

I assume that those who do not care greatly for the climate change movement or simply think that them switching to an electric vehicle is pointless, and makes no dent on their carbon footprint would only adopt this technology for aesthetic purposes. If they saw a really nice Tesla and could afford it, sure why not switch over, but it's not a priority. I assume people like this are either late adopters or will not adopt ever. Another population I see never adopting this technology are those who dispute or criticize the climate change movement. For example, an electric car has many microchips in it, and it takes hours of heavy machinery moving soil, and burning fossil fuels to excavate the materials needed to make a single chip. I myself see common sense in that and understand how some may never adopt due to scrutinies like such.

There are negative consequences to electric vehicles. Many operate on autopilot mode where the driver does not have to engage with the car to get to their destination. This has been the cause of many accidents. Relying solely on technology for your safety is not a decision I'd make myself. Also, electric cars need to be charged. There are nowhere near the amount of electric vehicle charging stations as there are gas stations where I live and in much of the country. Places with many early adopters like California may differ. Charging takes long for these vehicles, there are concerns over the driving range on full charge, and replacing batteries is another concern as they're very expensive. To reiterate, the cons seems to be costs of purchase and maintenance, avoidance of collision, and impractical charging. 

I myself don't belive the positive effects of electric vehicles out way the negative ones. As someone who cares for the climate but believes we will only benefit from large scale change, I would not purchase an electric car. I dispute some reasonings for why electric cars are more green than gas cars, and a Tesla won't be in my price range for years anyways. After a cost-benefit analysis for this technology I can determine that for my individual needs, an electric vehicle is not something I would purchase, but for many it is and I don't oppose that decision. In my eyes the only affects from electric cars is individual, so all should analyze if it would work best for them.

In The Age of AI

 The video we watched was very informative about the history and future of AI. As proved with the live streamed Go match, AI is smarter than humans are. They're able to endlessly study information to learn every way to complete a task, and even form their own decisions based on that prior knowledge. AI is the world's current technology that is exploding and perhaps may create enough change to be deemed an AI revolution.

China is leading the globe in e-commerce and heavily utilizes facial recognition. I find it concerning that they seem to be in "the lead" with AI technology and have done so in less than three years. I am however, aware that China uses AI technology to control their citizens and place fear in them not to misbehave. They use facial recognition to detain prisoners of state and send them to internment camps. An oppressive government with state of the art technology is bound to use all they can for the protection of their interests and total control of the population. This is one big problem with AI technology, as many technologists fear the work they do will not be used for good and rather for evil.

Aside from corrupt government usage of AI, those in the tech industry have expressed numerous concerns over unpredictability, regulation, lack of "common sense" in AI, global politics, autonomous weapons systems, privacy, and many more. AI's threat to national security is a top concern. AI would most likely be used mainly for the operational level of war. Concerns come at AI's ability to value ethics and take them into consideration. It would need to be decided how much autonomy an AI weapon would be given-- how much control the AI would have. AI in the strategic level of national security would most likely hold influence in management, employment, and development of military force. As of now our defense department has promised only a human would be in charge of the powers able to kill another, but if AI operates that weapon and has the ability to decide a course of action based on what it knows about the climate of the world, lines blur. 

AI being used to detect identity theft will be a game changer. AI will be of most use if a large company has a data breach, and clients information is swirling onto the internet. AI will be able to identify identity theft much faster than a manual analysis, which can often still miss thefts. AI will perfectly run authentication tests, pattern recognition, and can monitor behavioral analytics. AI will greatly help online security  since depending on the size of a business there can be hundreds of billions of signals that will need to be analyzed to calculate risks of enterprise attack. Humans can no longer complete tasks of that level, and an AI who can do it in minutes is the future of online cyber security. 

Privacy is very big at stake in the developing climate of AI. It is feared that AI collects too much data, as they track all online activity for an individual. Many people don't like the idea of companies having data on everything they've ever done. This data isn't deleted, so big tech companies just have tabs on everything you've ever searched for in their possession. This is concerning when third parties get involved, like advertisers who buy your data to then know what they should display to you. This can also be done at a government level, and in that case AI is therefore spying on you for government use. When companies state how they use their AI, it is also easier for hackers to access that data and corrupt it. There seem to be nothing but cons for our privacy in this AI changing world, unless users obtain the ability to delete online data, or decline the sale of it to third parties. 

Some good things about AI include: increased justice for trials or fines, avoidance of discrimination, more informed decision making, reduction of human error, 24/7 availability, new inventions, daily applications, unbiased decisions, digital assistance, shortening of tasks, medical applications, improving workplace safety, and much more. AI is something that should be accepted slowly with thought about how you want it to aid in your life and how much faith you put in it. While there can be many very bad consequences, I still believe AI will transform our world in many positive ways. 

Anti-War Voices

 
Today in the world you have the news at your fingertips. You can open up your laptop to Google News and browse through the newest articles about Russian missiles. You can turn on the TV and listen to the mainstream media announce Biden's request to send more aid to Ukraine. Or you could open up Snapchat and tap through articles claiming we are on the brink of WWIII, speaking as if that's already true. What you won't be able to find with a simple reach onto the internet are anti-war voices. 

Anti-war opinions are unfavorable to the government, so people who kiss up to the government... a.k.a. the mainstream media, won't showcase those voices. The government loves war. Apparently there's money to be made during wartime; money I'm sure won't go back into taxpayer's pockets. However, all I see right now is a massive debt adding up. The last thing I want is war right now. I see lots and oh my gosh lots of internal problems within our country that need fixing before we wage war for what? Fun? Money? War right now means nuclear. Means millions dead. Anybody in our country advocating for this is crazy in my mind. But now, as I go onto all the news media sources, and I don't see any sentiment similar to mine, I'm gonna go crazy too. This is like this for a reason. Whether it's the government, big tech, the established media, elite influence, or a combination of a few-- anti-war voices are purposely buried to deter traction and alienate those with similar opinions.

Seeking out obscure websites is the only way to find true anti-war sentiment because it goes against the narrative the government and media is pushing. None of this is shocking to me, the idea that though we are entitled to protect dissent there's still a push back against those who disagree. I've been questioning the government ever since Trump began his 2016 campaign. The idea he ran on was pretty much that the government is full of shifty people, doing dishonorable things behind closed doors, not being transparent with the public, and he wanted to stir things up as somebody who'd never been in politics before. Since
then I've come into my own determining my political beliefs and questioning anything that seems fishy. I have suspicions about government action all of the time, and I'm constantly seeking out who would have something to gain, or better yet whose money went where. What I'm trying to gather is that there has never been a point in my life where I've understood and trusted the government at the same time. 

If you understand how the government works and what they can and can't do, you shouldn't trust them. Let alone anti-war this blogpost could potentially be labeled as anti-government. Perhaps, that's why anti-war voices are hidden. If the government is pushing for war and you're not is it then anti-government to spread your opinions? If you think it isn't then what if your anti-war opinions made it onto MSNBC, and people watch, they agree, and then protests pick up, there's people outside of the capitol. Would that scare or threaten the government? I think so. Nobody wants to be threatened, so would the government then want anti-war voices to be silenced? I'm fairly certain anti-war voices can only be heard on obscure websites because of this. While I may not have proof of the government or associates actively trying to hide these voices, it seems like a very reasonable conclusion using common sense-based reasoning. I might not be right, but I'm still entitled to think and publish this opinion just as much as people are entitled to protest war.