Extra Post: EOTO class response: What I learned about Instagram

                                

I was surprised to learn so much about Instagram in the EOTO presentations we did in class. As someone who has used Instagram since 2013, I can definitely attest that it has served as my primary app of sharing my life with friends and family. 

Instagram was wildly successful from its inception. Launched in October 2010, the app was created as a social media site solely focused on sharing photos. At first, it attracted mostly photographers and other digital artists. The app didn't stop there though. Just two months later, Instagram hit 1 million users. After another quick two years, Facebook bought Instagram and added the fast-growing app to its arsenal. Since then, the app has dabbled with a variety of features and added videos, direct messages, and stories as of 2016. 

The wild success of Instagram seems to have further infiltrated other platforms. Twitter for one just added stories far later than its other social media peers recently in 2020. Although Instagram is younger than Twitter, it has eclipsed the blog-styled app in several categories as indicated by the graphics below based on data from SimilarWeb. Instagram is closing in on Facebook's once-impenetrable monopoly over social networking in daily time on the app. 

Instagram has become the "new Facebook" primarily through its popularity with younger generations such as Gen Z who were not of age when Facebook came about. The app is not only a place to share all types of photos, it also doubles as the launching pad for the trends, brands, and standards of tomorrow's world. 

However, Instagram's meteoric rise does not come with no bad apples. According to a 2017 survey by Time Magazine, the photo-sharing app came in last behind Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat respectively for mental health and well-being. One of the most repeated responses came from the app's ability to create unreasonably high standards for girls and womens' bodies. Instagram has also received criticism for being a type of highlight reel showcasing only the best moments in life but not the low points. 

Despite its flaws, millions of users log in every day to get their fix of what's going in the lives of their peers. The user-friendly interface makes staying on the app easy. In the next decade, it would not be surprising to see Instagram supersede Facebook as the king amongst the platforms. 

Sources:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102615/story-instagram-rise-1-photo0sharing-app.asp#:~:text=Instagram%20is%20a%20photo%20and,app%20was%20launched%20on%20Oct.

https://medium.com/@obtaineudaimonia/how-instagram-started-8b907b98a767#:~:text=Instagram%20was%20developed%20in%20San%20Francisco%20by%20Kevin%20Systrom%20and%20Mike%20Krieger.&text=At%20this%20point%2C%20Systrom%20decided,solely%20on%20communication%20through%20images.

https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/average-daily-time-on-social-media#post-navigation-3

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/7-unexpected-ways-instagram-has-changed-the-world/539032/

https://time.com/4793331/instagram-social-media-mental-health/

Extra Post: In the Age of A.I.

                 

Throughout history, people seem to have an innate drive to want to optimize every aspect of life. Social development was rather minuscule until the industrial revolution, which discovered how to enhance productivity beyond muscle power. Now, the same type of revolution is taking place only it's machine power overcoming brain power of humans. Public and private Corporations as well as world governments are seeking to understand the future possibilities of A.I. (artificial intelligence). This new technology could unlock the door to questions of which people might not even know to ask yet. Although the possibilities are seemingly endless, there is plenty of cause for concern as to why this black box technology could change the human experience.

The most visible pioneers of artificial intelligence can be found in Silicon Valley. Tech giants such as Google, Facebook, and others here in the U.S. have utilized the ability of A.I. in order to create algorithms which in theory maximize their customers' engagement and profits as a result. The downside of doing so comes from a privacy standpoint. In order to conduct the solutions outputted by these machine algorithms, the companies need to buy massive amounts of customer data which is made available to them. Once the data is available, Google can access someone's search history or Facebook can recommend certain groups. This has raised several questions about ethics in technology, and as it was stated in the documentary there is a difference between a third party or tech giant having a right to know about you and a right to "no" in that someone can refuse to have their information sold to these companies. Grumblings about industrial capitalism turning to surveillance capitalism are still in full throat today in 2021. 

Once the wiz kids of Silicon Valley figured out a way to utilize this machine learning, it was only a matter of time before governments wanted a piece of the action. The U.S. began the arms race for A.I. with a sizable lead, but that advantage has since dwindled with the Xi Jinping administration since the early 2010's. President Xi has set in motion a variety of initiatives with the intention of China catching up to 

America in A.I. by 2025 and taking the lead by 2030. So far, it appears to be working. Some of China's plans for A.I. are different than America's though. A primary example of this comes from Megvii, a Chinese tech company which specializes in deep learning and facial recognition. What has resulted is a futuristic-type society in which people can do tasks such as grocery shopping or bike rental through the use of just their face. It also was speculated that this technology could be used as a type of social credit score which would track one's behavior and handle rewards or punishment as a result. 

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of A.I. comes from its ability to displace the needs for humans in the workplace. There could be an unprecedented labor force disruption inbound that can't yet be imagined because the computer scientists haven't figured out the most optimal form of this intelligence. Kai-Fu Lee made the point that A.I. could displace 50% or more of human jobs and might actually disproportionately do so for white collar job workers since brain power required in those jobs could be easily replaced by a fully operational super-computer. This twist also begs the question of what will become of blue collar workers. The town of Saginaw, Michigan was shown to be already behind the eight ball in terms of quality of life with hardly any median income growth since World War II. With the rise of A.I., who knows if jobs such as trucking or manufacturing could go fully machine in the future. 

Much is still to be discovered about what A.I. can do. Today's machines are starting to take on more complex tasks such as handling e-commerce distributions whether at the warehouses or actually delivering packages themselves. Other uses relate more towards leisure or governing. This superintelligence will undoubtedly alter the course of human history and reshape daily life. However, the possibility still exists that this tech could be mankind's undoing. Hopefully, humans find a way to leverage this groundbreaking discovery in a way that benefits all people and not just a few technology oligarchs or party leaders.

Sources:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/in-the-age-of-ai/

Key Post 2: EOTO Technology Timeline

 All about the Telegraph! 

 

               

        

At the beginning of the 19th century, the best way to ensure a message would properly travel to the intended recipient was to deliver a note by hand or to entrust the note to another who would have to travel and deliver it. Messages that needed to travel even further took weeks or months to arrive. What compounded long-distance communication even further was the geographical composition of the young United States. Large cities such as New York and Philadelphia certainly harbored a large proportion of citizens, but a great deal also lived in smaller towns or in isolated wilderness. Yet as the country continued its manifest destiny of westward expansion, a new system of communication was needed to deliver information in a timely manner. Enter Samuel Morse, pioneer of human communication. Morse did not initially begin his adult life as an inventor. In fact, he painted portraits of figures such as Marquis de Lafayette, James Monroe, and many others. His inspiration for inventing the telegraph came from a conversation he heard about electromagnets while on a ship returning home from Europe. Together with Leonard Gale and Alfred Vail, Samuel Morse invented and patented the first-ever electric telegraph.

                                

Before the machine itself came along, a system was needed in order to send/receive messages. Samuel Morse invented a code bearing his name (morse code) as the method to how these messages could be transcribed. The code was simple- each letter of the alphabet would get its own unique series consisting of short clicks called dots (.) and/or long clicks dashes (-). In order to make the process easier, common letters such as a or e would have simple sequences  (.- for a) whereas scarcer-used letters such as x would have more complex sequences (-..-). This is partially why the international code for distress is recognized as SOS. Although its meaning is commonly attributed to something such as "save our ship" or "save our souls," this series of letters was chosen for use by militaries decades later because of the simple and recognizable sequences of the letters S (...) and O (---). 

The composition of a telegraph seems simple over a century and a half later, but it was quite the technological achievement at its inception. Here are the steps to how a telegram message would be sent and received

1. Toggle the transmission key to send the desired message leaving pauses between letters and words
2. The signal from the key travels along the body of the telegraph via the battery as electrical waves to the register
3. The waves are received and travel along the infrastructure of poles (which were widely available beginning during the 1860's)
4. Once the waves reach the intended destination, the message is received through the register by way of the electromagnet 
5. The message is transcribed by the telegraph on paper using the morse code of dots and dashes. It is also received by a clicking sound of the telegraph

With help from others, Morse was able to get a telegraph line built from Washington D.C. to Baltimore, Maryland. Morse demonstrated the ability of his invention in the chambers of the Supreme Court on May 24, 1844. He telegraphed his partner Alfred Vail, who was in Baltimore, the phrase "What hath God wrought?" an excerpt from Numbers 23:23 of the Bible. Morse was a devout Christian, and so this message was chosen by a close family friend as a means of celebrating the Lord's work in this act which would change human communication. Vail received the message and the world was changed in that moment. 

        

Not long after this demonstration, the telegraph became the preferred method of communication during the Civil War. When the war began, there were no telegraph lines connected to the War Department or the White House. This soon changed for the War Department but not the White House as President Lincoln realized how beneficial it could be to be in touch with his troops on the frontlines. Throughout his presidency, Lincoln sent nearly one thousand telegraphs mostly about the War. He constantly spent time in long-distance dialogue with his generals and on some occasions slept on a cot if a conflict was still in progress. One of most famous telegraphs went to future president Ulysses S. Grant towards the end of the war in 1864 at the Siege of Petersburg, “Hold on with a bulldog grip, and chew and choke as much as possible.” The union had far greater telegraph infrastructure than the confederacy, which inevitably contributed to their once-improbable victory.  

Western Union completed the first transcontinental telegraph line in 1861 and delivered the last message nearly 150 years later in 2006. Although the telegraph is no longer in practice, it established a precedent by removing the limitation of physical travel for messages. In the digital age, sending a text message, making a phone call, and composing an email further reflect this principle. Morse's curiosity with the intricacies of the electromagnet led to the serendipity of modern communication.

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samuel-F-B-Morse

https://stg.classzone.com/books/ms/na/ss/amhist-07/research_and_writing/writing_models/us8wm_u6_telegraph.pdf

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/may-24/#:~:text=to%20this%20page-,What%20Hath%20God%20Wrought%3F,Washington%2C%20D.C.%2C%20to%20Baltimore.

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/telegraph

https://nrich.maths.org/2198#:~:text=Morse%20code%20was%20invented%20by,or%20carried%20them%20in%20writing.

https://www.americanheritage.com/what-hath-god-wrought

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/30860

https://nationalponyexpress.org/historic-pony-express-trail/1860-1861-history/

https://time.com/4307892/samuel-morse-telegraph-history/

https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-telegraph-civil-war

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/profiles/samuel-morse-the-artist-who-invented-the-morse-code/

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/morse-demonstrates-telegraph

Key Post: Speech Theories

 

Protecting Speech & Expression in Modern America                                        

When the first amendment of the Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison in the late 18th century, it was a radical idea. The forty-five words illustrate the founding fathers' commitment to a true democracy of leaders deriving their legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Since then, the first amendment has cemented itself as a cornerstone of an evolving American electorate. Today's hyper-polarized political climate is as relevant a time as ever to discuss some of these ideals surrounding one's freedom to express grievances about the government.

Most important value: Marketplace of Ideas- It seems logical to surmise that when all ideals are allowed to be suggested and debated that the truth/best path forward will emerge. However, the arrival of Donald Trump to the political sphere turned this concept on its head. Trump utilized Twitter as a means of advancing his campaign's agenda in a way no other candidate previously had by constantly criticizing other governmental figures and declaring major networks as "Fake News." Despite much of Trump's rhetoric being labeled bombastic or hyperbolic by the masses, his message highly resonated with many Americans who felt neglected by the current system. His tactics worked so well in fact that he was elected president in an upset victory over Hillary Clinton. Even with his victory, Trump and his opposition did not quiet down throughout the length of his term. There was never a true civil discussion or unified approach to seemingly any issue for all four years of his presidency. The marketplace of ideas suffered even further after Trump's defeat by Joe Biden as Trump continued to push the sentiment that the election was "rigged" or "stolen." These accusations were false and weren't supported by very credible information, yet Trump's influence and following on these platforms kept the narrative alive. Despite Trump vacating the office of the presidency, his unconventional anti-establishment message will likely linger amongst right-wing enthusiasts for years to come. 

                                  

Most personal value: Protect Dissent- For over 200 years, the two-party system has debated the ideals about how the country should continue to evolve. Although people have always disagreed, those in the minority opinion could still express themselves no matter how unpopular their preferred party was at the time. Some of this might be coming undone in the modern era. For years, conservatives have beat the drum about perceived liberal-bias in the media and social media platforms. This frustration gave way to the creation of Parler, a new site which was aimed at being a type of safe haven for right-wing thinkers. The app stayed out of the news cycles until Jan. 6 when it was discovered some who partook in the attack on the capitol had previously posted threats about that day or shared footage enthusiastically at the event. Almost immediately, Parler started to disappear from various app stores and 15 million users were silenced. This is where the issue gets more complex. Yes, threats of violence should be addressed and prosecuted immediately. Yes, the insistence that the election was "stolen" or "rigged" from Trump has not been supported by any hard evidence. Yes, what took place at the Capitol was wrong and inexplicable. However, this also reveals the uncomfortable truth about the power of unelected technology oligarchs. It was not Parler who chose to shut down but rather other platforms such as Amazon, Apple, or Google who offer the app in their virtual stores. Since these companies are not congress, the first amendment does not apply in this situation. Apple CEO Tim Cook suggested the app could return if its moderation could be properly secured. Parler has since resumed operations but is still not available for new downloads. It will be interesting to see what develops for these tech giants in the Biden administration since both sides of the political aisle have voiced concern for the overreach of these companies. Again, threats or hate speech should not be tolerated on any social networking sight. However, non-inciting forms of speech should be protected no matter how unpopular they might be to the masses. To use a quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall commonly attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The Republican party's platform might not resonate with the majority of Americans right now, but they deserve a platform to express those ideals. 

Most in action today: Stable Change- If American politics could be summarized in one word, it would be polarization. Each day it seems like the Democrats and Republicans drift further away from a moderate position and become more hard-lined on every issue. Despite the growing separation of the American political spectrum, both sides have accepted the long-standing unwritten rule of a peaceful transition of power. This idea acknowledges that although a large amount of citizens could be displeased with the results of an election, they are allowed to express frustration while simultaneously respecting the legitimacy of the new administration. Within the past five years though this long-standing ideal has been seemingly forgotten. The legitimacy of elections have repeatedly been called into question by both sides crying foul when their candidate somehow lost. When Trump was elected in 2016, the trend #notmypresident circulated across social media. Democrats also complained about the electoral college system undermining the will of the people, since Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million ballots. Four years later it was Trump and his team tweeting #stopthesteal as a response to the mass sum of mail-in ballots which heavily favored Joe Biden. Questioning the legitimacy of free and fair elections, which are a novelty in the grand scheme of the world, only fans the flames of partisanship and furthers the divide between the parties. This power struggle is precisely what George Washington warned about in his farewell address. Poor George is probably rolling over in his grave flipping between news channels in the presidential afterlife. It would do both Democrats and Republicans best if they recognized the will of the people (whose interests they claim to have closest to heart) and not try to blame their shortcomings on some other phenomena. 

Sources:

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/775259-failure-of-the-marketplace-of-ideas

https://theconversation.com/free-speech-in-america-is-the-us-approach-fit-for-purpose-in-the-age-of-social-media-152854

https://fortune.com/2021/01/28/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech/

https://www.nhpr.org/post/ask-civics-101-why-peaceful-transition-power-important#stream/0

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/533245-transition-of-power-greatness-meets-infamy

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-was-parler-shut-down-heres-why-the-social-network-is-offline-11610478890

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

https://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-parler-could-return-apple-app-store-moderation-2021-1

Blog #4 Modern Dissent Against War

Losing the Battle and Losing the War 

                 

Throughout the course of the 20th century, the United States prided itself on galvanizing support for the various wars it entered. People willingly bought war bonds issued from the government which held no real investment value in order to fund military operations. Despite the overwhelming majority backing the efforts of the military, some bravely spoke out against these actions. Consequentially, those dissenting against the popular opinion were silenced and even put on trial. Today, true anti-war arguments can be found only on the obscure pages of the internet. The principles of these arguments remain the same as they did over a century ago, but the power of the State and the media in general has drastically evolved. 

When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, the nation at large supported the effort. Two years later, a few men, who happened to be Russian immigrants, distributed pamphlets which were contrary to the military's plans involving Russia. The Supreme Court ruled against the immigrants and sentenced them to jail time in a series of cases. A silver lining that emerged was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous descent when he introduced the concept of a marketplace of ideas. This precedent established that all opinions had a right to be heard but in the end the proper response would be recognized and chosen. 

                      

The modern anti-war movement can only be found on pages of obscure blogs and new sites. One of these examples is a website appropriately called Antiwar.com. The writers acknowledge they have an agenda of opposing all global military entanglements but that their opinion does not stop them from being true journalists by reporting on all angles of a story. The site's political ideology could most closely be associated as libertarian, and since there is no major libertarian party the blog serves as a crucial way of reaching those who feel neither of the two parties represents their truest political stance.

Another similar website is called the American Conservative. Although the title would seemingly indicate the site is about the right-wing ideology in today's America, the purpose of the blog is actually hypercritical of the "neoconservatism" as well as American imperialism, expanding central government, and the forgotten middle class. The American Conservative, like Antiwar.com, believes that both parties have contributed to the overextended arm of the U.S. in foreign affairs. In order to fix this, the American Conservative suggests that the parties revisit the principles outlined by the constitution and focus more on domestic affairs. 

Today's anti-war voices do not receive as nearly the harsh treatment as they did in the early portion of the twentieth century. Ironically though, being anti-war is still a radical concept today. Headlines about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and various other countries don't even make headlines anymore since most have accepted that the military must police other less-developed nations. Yet even with both political parties supporting their portion of war, some still speak out against the country's biggest expense. Perhaps some day the political parties would hear an argument and consider that war might not be good for anything after all. 

Sources:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/

https://www.antiwar.com/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/250us616

Blog #3- First Amendment Principles in the Current News Cycle

Does the 1st Amendment Guarantee Freedom from Censorship?

When social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and others began to remove President Trump's accounts following his remarks on January 6, it garnered a plethora of media attention. Trump and his loyal followers claimed this apparent censorship was entirely unconstitutional and that the president's first amendment rights were being violated. Yet upon further review the country's most iconic run-on sentence which has stood for more than two centuries does not include any rules regarding non-government censorship. But how could this be? Did Trump's words really lead his supporters to respond with violence? Does big tech need to be thumped on the nose for claiming to support all ideals yet appearing to have a political agenda? Let's discuss. 

Although many in the United States believe the first amendment is widely applicable in all situations regarding the squashing of speech, the first five words of "Congress shall make no law" delegitimize that argument. When James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he was not concerned about (lizard man?) Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Madison's primary concern was preventing an overreaching government, which the colonists wanted to desperately escape from in England. Since these oh-so-important freedoms are worded in this way, the first amendment does not extend to private actors such as these social media platforms. This legality is known as the idea of the state action doctrine.  

The next issue regarding the President's words was the question of whether or not his words caused violence. There is a fine line known as the speech/action dichotomy which determines what constitutes speech, which is protected, and action, which is not protected. The key to attributing action to speech is the concept of incitement, which the Supreme Court ruled in Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) as speech which inspires imminent lawless action that is likely to occur. PolitiFact.com reconstructed a timeline of Trump's tweets which showed he encouraged his supporters at least ten times to "stop the steal" of the election out of his favor or to gather in the capitol on January 6. However, none of his tweets directly mentioned anything related to taking deliberate action. On the day of the certification, Trump gave a speech urging those who gathered to take the next step, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol...You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." Thus, trying to convict Trump on incitement would be foolish since it does not fit the description given by SCOTUS.

Despite never perhaps inciting violence, social media platforms had seen enough. Seemingly all of the major sites suspended Trump's accounts indefinitely under the collective reasoning of stopping him from spreading any further untrue rhetoric. Although those who are pro-Trump could argue this is an example of prior restraint, that term derives its intended meaning from the government being the one who is enacting the restriction. However, private platforms banning certain types of protected speech (particularly right-wing views) does raise cause for concern. U.S. Congressman Fred Keller (R, PA-12) remarked that big tech's action set "a dangerous precedent" for removing Trump but allowing the Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran to retain his platform. Keller's calls for a closer examination of the actions of massive technology companies continue to be amplified all across the country. 

The actions taken to silence Donald Trump were not necessarily unconstitutional but rather unprecedented. An upcoming attempt by House Democrats to impeach Trump (after he is already gone from office) will likely fall flat due to the careful language of Madison regarding the relationship between speech and action. Madison's concern with a limited government are certainly a cornerstone piece of American politics. Yet this dark chapter of modern American history does raise future questions of how congress might need to intervene to stop the unchecked nature of big tech. 

Sources

 www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jan/09/rob-curley-the-first-amendment-doesnt-necessarily-/

www.dailyitem.com/news/local_news/law-experts-1st-amendment-doesnt-protect-presidents-place-on-social-media/article_97fe2d73-8058-5456-bf21-ad8e4537079a.html

www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/