Final Post

I have learned so much from this class from having little trust in technology  to understanding the roles of the government in speech. I have learned things that will be invaluable to me for the rest of my life.  Understanding that private estblishments can do whatever they want speech-wise is an important thing to understand especially because people think the first amendment is a shield to say and do whatever they want.

 I also enjoyed all the work that I put into Scotus review in AP government in high school which was actually useful as I learned more about the cases in this class then when I originally learned them. I also learned a lot about the history of laws and the evolution of our government. I learned quite a bit about technology. At first I didn't understand the correlation but then I saw the censorship and the scope of cyberspace. Understanding laws has evolved for this new frontier of media, information, and even more that we have yet to see is exciting.  In class I have learned how to watch, learn, and talk about current events. Not just that but I really came to an understanding on how to grasp how culturally big these events are but also how historically big they are as well. 

Within learning about technology and the historical impact is that Facebook is becoming Meta. They are trying to re market themselves and become hip and thought our diffusion of ideas theory understanding they are trying to resegment themselves into the start of the cycle in the theory. So many companies try to break through in this but fail. Whether it's marketing, the user base, or some sort of tech problem, a lot of things fall flat. It is nice to know people are constantly trying to break through the industry. Each technological innovation whether or not it takes off comes with positives and negatives. A key idea in class was the idea that as tech evolves the less privacy we will have for ourselves. It may be face id or companies giving their information to the government or third parties. 

What was startling and how this will live with me until I die is the fact that firstly, they can change the terms of the contract I signed electronically. What interested me with that is how solid those contacts are. I really thought since injury waivers aren't that legally binding that neither were these contacts and I am incorrect for thinking that. Second thing, being is the place I post the photos owns the photos even if I delete my account. Some other things that stick with me are the Invasion of Privacy as a Business Model, the State Action Doctrine, and the Eight Values of Free Expression. These are all things that will be applied in my future daily life. I can understand these concepts like the Invasion of Privacy as a Business model and understand when a new social media comes out how they exploit me. Unless Congress does something about Facebook, which they won't, The model will be used more and more. Already Amazon knows what I want more often than not, so having more companies do this is a threat to my privacy. The Eight Values of Free Expression are all thoughts that are key to me being able to live and commute in the future and may have insights on how to live going forward. 

Moving forward as a college student, I feel like when talking about these problems in class many other schools aren't talking about the first amendment in this aspect so people have to experience and learn this on their own. Coupling that with how we apply it with current events is insightful on understanding how to apply this information. The class has been an amalgamation of ideas on the First Amendment that will help me in the future. The class made me enjoy Elon Musk’s tweet which was a picture of the new Twitter CEO as Stalin because of how open he is to censorship. What was funny and a solid memory from class is when you explained how big it was for Twitter to ban a President of the United States from its platform. I would like to thank you for a great class and a great semester. 

Living in the Age of AI

 Within watching this video its starts with the game Go and how a computer beats the best Go player.  Go is complicated so people did not see this coming. This brought me back to a video a friend had me watch of a computer called Deep Blue. 

 

Deep Blue is a chess computer and almost the father of IBM Watson. The computer Deep Blue was so good at chess it gave Gary Kasparov trouble and he was thought of as one of the greatest chess players in the world. Deep Blue would win some games with him and would soon be shut down. The computer came a long way and learned how to play chess.  For a computer this is tricky considering onpassant moves and how different pieces interact. Knowing this and having a friend here at HPU who has a tattoo of the last movie by the computer to win at Go has given me knowledge about computer AI. Seeing that deep learning and deep mind being the Go computers clearly show they have taken a few ideas from the predecessor Deep Blue. 

 

From there China declared that they would lead the world in AI and technology by 2030. As a whole it is kinda scary considering for a while they were so far behind in technology that it is crazy. What makes it even more terrifying is the fact that China recently adapted a social credit system where their cameras track you in person and online. Everything you do is tracked by the government and they give you a score. This score determines your life. If you can get a mortgage, what train you can ride, and things you can do. This is something straight from black mirror. If you watch the video linked here you see how conditioned it makes people, the people rave about how its great and all is well and have great scores. The government shouldn't be able to make you say anything as we went over this in class. This starts to become a prior restraint if you can’t criticize the government without fear of being at some sort of penalty, it’s a real problem. 

 

Then learning from the AI video for this blog that China's facial recognition is good enough to be used as payment. This makes China seem like a natural disaster by possibly becoming a dystopian future issue as it already is with the social credit. Then there is automated driving and using AI to check for breast cancer. Automated driving is something that worries me because my grandfather once told me how technology works because he has never owned a piece of technology that has not malfunctioned at least once. Thinking about self driving cars, I can see future issues arise although they may be minimal. I do think it can solve a lot of problems, but I worry for times it doesn't work properly. Within the breast cancer screenings with AI, I think this is a good application because I know humans that were failed to spot breast cancer early and seeing any cancer early is a life changer. So having an AI that can look and be like a second set of eyes is useful. 

 

From there the video follows Wired magazine and I enjoy their content as they have Adam Savage of  Myth Busters tasked as a blogger and youtuber.  Wired media, had their view on tech come from tech is the best to being more informative of what is the pros and cons is a big step. I wish the media did this but sadly, they do not. Kai Fu lee talks at Wired then gives some insights on how AI is bad. He points out that 50% of jobs may be phased out due to AI within the next 15 years. The rest of the video talks about automation in the work industry and that goes into detail about things we have discussed in class like Amazon’s Alexa and Facebook taking user’s information and trying to be great at facial recognition. What I was expected to be brought up in the video at that point is that Zuckerberg can speak fluent Mandarin because of the potential draw with China. Facial recognition is a problem and poses threats to our privacy by tech used for all sorts of means. It worries me because stealing an identity will get easier and easier with technology, like deep fakes and as such it may change the game of stealing an identity. It could get easier with facial recognition or it could get harder I couldn't tell you. 

 

When thinking of the evolution of AI I think there should be a line drawn in the sand. A box of limitations and a set of parameters and rules. If we do not do so now it may possibly be too late. I think AI will get out of hand and the question is when? Technology grows at an exponential rate. It is amazing. All that AI needs is it to learn about itself and make a move like in Go where it's brilliant and we haven't seen or expected it. Despite  all the time trying it will become something we can't control or handle.  AI has worried me for a while and I think it will not go away. I see AI being an issue to ourselves, the government, and the world. The question is what happens from here?  

EXTRA Age of AI

In the video about the Age of AI it was very alerting. There's so many problems I had already with AI and this brought more to my attention. I was already worried about it taking people’s jobs. Also understanding how big the industry is growing and what it is becoming was interesting. I did not know it was as big as it was. Nor did I know China was getting so big with its tech. The fact that they are at this rate doesn't surprise me. Their system with social credit would make Joseph Stalin cry a tear of happiness. Being able to survey people constantly and give them consequences on those actions at any time unchecked that's what dictators can only dream of. Then it's all automatic and done by AI making it easier to use. Lastly, making its people fear it constantly and worry about not being able to use public transportation or get a loan if they do something unfavorable. I was surprised that Kai Fu Lee said as much as he said considering he is in China often and how China has this problem with its billionaires disappearing.

The near two hour long video hits a lot, AI playing go, self driving cars, detecting breast cancer, machines taking our jobs, facial reaction, Chinese camps. The video ends with explaining how this tech helps autortain governments more the democratic. This all raises so many questions about before AI steps up but what if the government uses it for wrong. While it can push us for the good and help us understand what makes us human I only see it go wrong. I see it being used for social control and many other nefarious deeds. I can see it hurting and harming people. I think its the new nuke issue but instead of mutually assured destruction. It's much more assured self destruction for the people of the countries China is already using to basically have a genoisde against a religious minority.  It's all very worsome and I think its a problem that will only compound and get worse. 

EOTO 2 Learned from others

The term fake news was coined in 1977. What makes it so annoying is that the more times you hear something the more likely you are to believe it. Making fake news posts and stories that are the same headlines and same fake story makes it so people who don't look into things or the story fits with their narrative they go with it.  Familiarity and fake news goes hand and hand. Fake news is something that has become more and more prevalent as time and technology has changed. 

The term Gatekeeping was coined in 1943. The term used in psychology now Gatekeeping is a very prevalent term in the communication business. Such as those who have the in on a story a event and use it so others cannot use it. Gatekeeping prevents people from using events, stories, or anything to create controversy. The Gatekeeping aspect is a gate that only the person who has access to this resource has access to, so others may only get a diluted portion of which or none at all. 

Agenda setting the term for what the media wants you to see. The term framing is making people think a certain way. The media twists reality for people and the fact they Gatekeep information a lot of the time people do not see the full story and can't understand important parts it makes framing and agenda setting easier. The media uses agenda setting and framing to make you think they want you to think and act as they want you to act. It doesn't work as well because people are aware of the media is pushing an agenda but it still can affect people. 

The term false flag comes from when pirates used to raise their flag and pretend to be on your side but then attack. Within the news there's accounts online that pose as one political party and push minimisation to people in that party. Very recently in Virginia there was a false flag where people pretended to be “The Proud Boys” a far right organization and the people who posed as these “Proud Boys” went with tiki torches to Glen Youngkin events to make Younkin look like he is further right. The plan was to get him away from voters who were moderate. This didn't work, the false flag opperators were also found out. Youngkin ended up winning his race. 

Cia Black Sites are areas made to detain people by the cia and US government for enhanced integration methods (torcher). These black sites are somewhere you do not want to be. It's like being kidnapped by the United States government. The scariest part is that Americans didn't know about it for a while. What also goes with these black sites is the term extraordinary rendition. This term extraordinary rendition means sending a person to a country where they are at a high risk of harm or at risk of torcher. Extraordinary rendition was legal until recently when people found out about enhanced interrogation. The government made it illegal to help use the press from it to cover up the enhanced interrogation coming out in the news 

Diffusion Theory

I would argue Facebook is the biggest innovation of social media. Before it was myspace, linkedin, HI5, six degrees, and friendster. Facebook made them either change or killed them, Linked in became a business networking site.  Facebook was different and I would argue it is the bar for social media now. All people who try to change social media and do something different look at Facebook as a starting point. These people who try to change may even just get bought out by Facebook. It may now be seen as a site where your grandma is, but Facebook didn't start that way. 

Facebook as an innovation. When you strip Facebook down by its history you ask what it started as and what is it now? You see it start as this young, new, hip website for college kids to meet each other with their .edu email. Using the Diffusion Theory of Ideas Facebook started at Harvard then spread to other colleges then people all over could use it. It started super exclusive considering the fact it started at harvard. At the point where its at Harvard you're at the innovators stage of Facebook. You move forward towards the first few colleges that aren't Harvard that would be Facebook being in the early adapters. Facebook is now hot, it is all over the place and now all colleges and some people can have access. This is its early majority stage. Facebook moves into a stage where all people can be on it. This is now its late majority. After this Facebook seems like a site now where its no longer for college kids to meet its no longer hip, new, or cool we have the laggards jumping ship onto Facebook and they are all older. Facebook has been stuck here until recently the plan is to change the name to Meta and try to change Facebook up a bit. They think maybe they can restart the cycle and who knows maybe Zuckerberg can do it. But possibly he should ask the guys he stole the idea from (just watched the social network the other day) and see what they think. Facebook should go back to its roots before this Meta sellout but I doubt it will go that way. 

Facebook’s biggest grab was always its users and I believe people are leaving because its users are all just mothers sharing their cringy memes, family photos, and what's going on in their life. But Facebook as a cooperation has legs. Facebook has bought Instagram ($1 billion), WhatsApp ($19 billion), Oculus VR ($2 billion), LiveRail ($500 million), and Threadsy (undisclosed sum). While Facebook is building Meta (Facebook 2.0) they may try to use these companies they own to push Meta. What is interesting about what they bought is instagram is kinda like Facebook and seems to be tending towards an older demographic so it may be with these social media platforms it all depends about the people who are using it for it to be big. 

Facebook has a lot of assets and ideas. While it isn't as shiny and new as when it started or its not any of the hype or impact it had when I was younger and hearing how cool Facebook was. They Still own all those companies and they have a ton of money. Facebook can reinvent itself if it its trying with Meta. While Facebook is not great for privacy it owns Whatsapp and that used to lead the forefront with encrypted messages. It usested to have so many advantages and was the best for awhile but now it is an average site that steals users information. If they could be more transparent or try to do less sketchy things I think people could come back. I think Facebook is in a better situation than twitter but I think Facebook has its work cutout for itself. 

EOTO 2

 My term was, “Cutting the Cord”. The term refers to cutting the bulky cable cords and switching to streaming services from cable. This started in the 2000’s and really started taking off in 2007. Netflix was truly the first platform that was making it possible to switch from cable and having a solid alternative. Soon many others would follow Netflix's lead soon to come would be Hulu, Disney plus, and it feels like more and more are available everyday. If you look at Diffusion of Innovation Theory, like we talked about for class, it feels like we are midway through late adapters. The problem with all this streaming is yes, Hulu has live sports, Netflix has a lot of the hottest tv series, but the problem is there's no news on any streaming services yet. So many people, like my parents or like Professor Smith, like to be able to flip through the news networks and see what's going on in the world. Being able to see what both sides say is pivotal. Streaming doesn't have this yet. 

While I truly think once someone can figure out a news streaming platform there will be a lot of success with it if it can get off the ground and doesn't get shot down by the mainstream. Hulu is trying but from what I have heard from people it's not any good and that is the problem. It’s not only not being done, but it's being done so poorly it is as if it doesn't exist. That is the biggest flaw from having it take off, but the second is people who are older who don't quite understand how it works and how to use it; so they will never cut the cord. So it may sound morbid, but cable won't die out until they do or it is adapted. The pros of cutting the cord is that it tends to be cheaper than cable depending on how many subscriptions you get. There are no ads or possibly less although I think that will change in the future. You can watch it anywhere. Also, there are no cable wires and no dealing with the cable installation windows. What is bad about it is that geolocation prevents some shows, but you can get around that with a vpn. You need the internet and it can cause bad video quality because it needs good internet. Lastly, you need multiple subscriptions to cover a lot of things you may want to watch. 

In totality, streaming services have changed the game on cable and it may not be on the same scope of going from radio to tv. This is going to force cable to have to change soon and using cable may make a comeback if they do it properly, but honestly it may not mean anything because it seems to be a few companies that own all of these companies so the people at the top may just let cable die. Mainstream society will continue to go on streaming sites it seems, but following Diffusion of Innovation Theory will plateau out. I feel like streaming has such an impact with society at this point and the fact we have terms like Netflix and chill or you get made fun of for not having Spotify premium says a lot. This whole trend affected me a lot. I wanted Netflix for a while to watch all sorts of shows without ads so I could just binge them all. I think streaming will be key for the rest of tv’s future until something replaces it.

Ted Talks

The first video we watched of Juan Enriquez's Internet Tattoos goes into depth about how everything on the internet will leave a trail on you, like you got a permanent stamp or a tattoo. He goes into the idea that we talked about in class, the fact that someone gave the cute name of "cookies" that tracks where you go is bad. The fact that they can know everywhere you browse and look is almost terrifying. Just thinking of how you will be unable to do anything with any sort of anonymity. What I find funny is how he talks of how Facebook bought the company that is doing high level facial recognition. What he elaborates that makes it scary is his dress scenario where a camera in the store can see your face, it will check what you see online and post online all just based upon your face. Then this tech can tell the shopkeeper what dress to hand you that most fits all of that information. Very scary to have that amount of information out there. It would be almost like having someone live in your head. Then Juan Enriquez wraps it all up with some Greek myths and how this is punishing people with immortality.  

Catherine Crump's NSA type police surveillance the TED talk goes into detail on how giving police high tech NSA/Military type tech is an issue. How the police have a tracker that scans license plates for people who may be wanted or such, but the problem is it saves the info of the plate, the scan and where it is. Allowing police to track you as they are passive does this process automatically, the police officer doesn't have to do a thing for this tech to do this, and since it's so cheap they no longer throw away the data. This allows the government to know too much about us. Knowing this info can be abused just to put people on a list depending on where they have been. This tech will be abused. The question is what will happen with it.

Christopher Soghoian Phone Wiretapping: Soghoian goes into the history of phone tapping. He explains that in the past phone companies gave recordings of calls to the government. And that the transmissions for phone calls were set up for wiretapping first and foremost. He explains, Apple and WhatsApp (now owned by Facebook) have very strong encryption technology within their services that prevent wiretapping. He explains the fight of encryption vs surveillance and the fire line of safety of being able to monitor people and having privacy. He wraps it all up with saying that you should use the apps talked about earlier and the encryption can protect you against not just governments but people who may be trying to spy on you 

The takeaway is the internet has always been a useful place and can be helpful, but it always has had some caveats to it. When thought of the downside technology kind of has always been this pandora’s box that only the government could put it all back in. Even still I am unsure if the government could truly put it back at the scope it is at. Juan Enriquez’s thoughts of the internet being like tattoos is a great metaphor for it. Understanding you're getting most of these tattoos without knowing is troubling. Also, the thought of being immortalized on the internet was once a sweet thought in my head but since hearing his TED talk, I have since changed my mind on that. I think understanding cookies, using a vpn, and just being wise of what you do is the only way to combat this. Catherine Crump’s talk about how the police can track your location is scary, the fact they do not throw away the information is concerning and the thought of being put on a list if your car is near somewhere and while the implications of the technology is okay, I can only see this being abused like she said. The only way to do anything about this is to lobby the government to throw away this data. I really dislike the thought of this being automatic as well. By far, my favorite TED talk was Christopher Soghoian. His words on encryption should be heard by all people. My friends and family should know what is most secure not just from the government, but anyone who may try to tap in and listen to our conversations. It's creepy to think people can listen to our conversations and do whatever with it. It's more concerning because the system was set up that way. The takeaway being using a service like facetime or iMessage to help protect it. I do not want to trust WhatsApp because it's owned by Facebook. Facebook and Google are just untrustworthy companies and I don't know what they are doing. I liked when Apple wouldn't give the key to open all phones to the FBI. I understand from a PR side when they caved because it was the San Bernardino shooters phones they were trying to unlock, but it was a big step until they gave the FBI that information. Apple seems semi trustworthy besides their pricing , defectiveness, and their hypocrisy with human rights.