The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

 The pros and cons of modern technology and, more specifically, social media have been discussed over the last decade and I always hear a recurring theme. The good is our ability to connect with other. The bad is how easily we can compare ourselves to others who are portraying is ideal version of their life. The ugly is a branch off of the bad being the increasing suicide rates. This is caused by people losing self worth from the comparing. While I agree with these ideas in general, I believe these three categories of social media can be explained a little differently.

The Good

With every new form of communicating, there is going to be some fear of how it will change society. Going back to Socrates, he warned families of the dangers of written word saying children are unable to
distinguish reality from fantasy. That sounds a lot like how people talk about teenagers relationships with social media. Slate.com defines this phenomena as "The older generation warns against a new technology and bemoans that society is abandoning the 'wholesome' media it grew up with, seemingly unaware that this same technology was considered to be harmful when first introduced."

That being said, I see plenty of benefits to technology even aside from the ease of connecting with others. Growing up, I remember sitting at my family's desktop computer and watching youtube videos about science or history for hours. I was able to explore the topics my teacher didn't cover in class. The accessibility of information is mind-boggling. 

The Bad

What I see as the most dangerous part of modern technology comes directly from this idea of accessibility. It's great that anyone can easily learn about the topics they are passionate about, but that's not all that's happening. From being on the internet, people are also learning about topics they didn't know they about until it was right in front of their face. More and more extreme views are gaining momentum because where 1 extremist would have been alone in his/her city, they can now connect with the other extremists and make it seem like their view is more normal than it really is. A study conducted by the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism found that social media played in role in the radicalization of 90% of extremists. 

The Ugly

This idea can be applied to an extreme view, not just political. When I'm online, it is not difficult for me to come across posts about depression and suicide. These posts will sometimes have thousands of likes and comments. My theory is that middle and high school age kids come across that content and think that because so many people are liking it that it's normal to want to kill yourself. Now that the idea is planted in their head, they might seek out more of that kind of content which only normalizes it more. Eventually, they commit suicide themselves. 

When I consider how prevalent suicide was when I was in high school, the answer is not at all outside of social media. Our teachers would present the alarming data of the increasing suicide rates and how dangerous it is to compare yourselves to others online, but once that lecture was over, none of my friends talked about that, nor did it happen to anyone over my four years of being there. If this new technology is going to continue to be harmful, it's going to be because it normalizes things that aren't normal.

The Age of AI

From the documentary Frontline on PBS, I learned about AI's developments, but I learned more about the state of our country. 

One statistic I learned is that the standard of living has dropped 15%. The other shocking figure is that 50% of Americans cannot afford an unexpected expensive of $400. That is 150 million people living paycheck to paycheck. It's hard for me to wrap my brain around that idea simply because of my surroundings, but it definitely makes me rethink my perspective on the state of the American economy.

This chart only goes up to 2011, but it shows the trend of our spending maintaining its growth, but our incomes are dropping. 

To connect these ideas back to new technology, this documentary suggests that the growth of this field will hurt the economy further by eliminating the basic jobs. Some people argue that the growth of technology provides jobs in the field as well, but the difference is that these new jobs will require expensive schooling, so they won't be open to anyone. 

The new capabilities of these innovations are interesting, but it is more prudential to consider where we will actually feel the impact. I believe this to be in the cost of living to increase while the median annual incomes do not keep up.

EOTO 2 Presentation Reflection

One thing I learned from these presentations is that the FVEY's alliance exists. In it are Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States, and New Zealand. This alliance was created to share surveillance information amongst each other. Together, this alliance has eyes on almost 500 million people. 

This immediately feels like a clear invasion of privacy, especially for the fact that it is being shared with foreign governments; so how is this legal? From the presentation, I learned that the FVEYs group allows the U.S. government to skirt the protection of the constitution because it is in the name of national security. 

BBC published an article about the abuse of power that happens when we enter a "state of emergency." He writes that politicians play into the notion that emergencies can only result in a chaotic mess, even though this isn't the case. This power grab is known as the Stomp Reflex.

I believe the excuses provided for international surveillance are similar to this ideology. The NSA says that they are helping out the safety of everyone by scanning for potential threats. In reality, they have a lot more information than they need or admit.

Another new piece of information I learned is the difference between disinformation and misinformation. It's pretty simple even though these words are often misused. Misinformation is spreading information that you think is true. Disinformation is spreading information that you know not to be true for an ulterior motive. 

This is a distinction that should be pushed more because it isn't very confusing. It is also important to understand that these two people are very different. 

EOTO Key Post - Media Consolodation

 

Justice William J Brennan jr.

"Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." - Justice Brennan on NY Times v. Sullivan in 1964

The Sherman Antitrust Act was approved July 2nd, 1890. This was the first legislation against monopolies. The government's National Archives website describes a trust as "an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transfer their shares to a single set of trustees." Stockholders are incentivized to do this because they are then entitled to a share of the combined companies which will yield much higher payouts.The obvious issue with this is that a small group of people are controlling an entire market. This leads to a lack of competition which would usually bring prices down and employee's wages up.

While it was originally used in the Gilded Age against people like Rockefeller and Carnegie, ti is still used today. In the late 1990's, this act was used against Microsoft accusing them of monopolistic business practices.

An interesting application of this act is with media consolidation. Helen Johnson, a student at Vassar College, writes that in 1983, there were 50 dominant media companies. Today, there are 6: Comcast, NewCorp, Disney, ViaCom, AT&T, and CBS. These corporations alone account for 90% of media consumed in America.

If one companies owns all of the smaller companies that sell jackets, they can do two things; up-charge the price per jacket, and make it low quality. Everyone needs a jacket so people will buy it and they'll have to got to this one company. The same idea applies to media consumption as opposed to goods and services. When a media company doesn't have enough competition, they can put in as little effort as they want. Almost everybody needs to be updated on the news and they have limited options on how to do that so the business is guaranteed. I believe this to be a contributor to the modern fake news issue.

These modern media businesses completely destroy the marketplace of ideas theory. The theory was developed in 1919 and argues that a free form of expression ultimately leads to truth. Only when our ideas are challenged can we know their strength. Without open expression, the ideas of the few in power will never be challenged. 

In the end, we are the only ones who get hurt as the consumers. It is way too easy for these companies to skew their news and create false narratives. To truly enjoy freedom, one must also have the freedom to seek and share ideas as he pleases. I'm not sure that the business practices of these companies today ensure that. I believe the Sherman Antitrust Act will be used frequently in the years to come.

Diffusion of Innovations

 

The Diffusion of Innovations is a theory of technological advancement that can be applied to many modern methods of communication. 

To look at Netflix as an example starting in 2007, the only people to transition from DVDs to streaming would have been the small percentage called the innovators. 

The early adopters wave came in 2010 when Netflix signed a $1 billion deal to stream films from Lionsgate, Paramount, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. These customers already owned a subscription, but began to see the value of streaming now that fan favorites are available.

Over the next several years, Netflix continued to sign deals with many different production and media agencies acquiring more movies and TV shows that their subscribers have access to. By 2014, Netflix had rights to Adult Swim, TNT, Starz, Sony, Star Wars, and had launched many of its own original series. With all of these developments, the early majority joined Netflix because it was the hub of streaming content.

The tipping point is the success of the Netflix originals in 2017, specifically 13 Reasons Why, Bandersnatch, Black Mirror, and Stranger Things. Today, Netflix has 2,796 orginal shows and movies, according to IMDB. By 2017, there were competitors like Hulu and HBOMax, but Netflix acquired that late majority by making shows that everybody watched only available on Netflix. I remember in 2017 when everybody was talking about these shows and very few people didn't know what we were talking about.

The laggards joined in 2020 during quarantine when there was nothing else to do so they might as well have access to entertainment. By 2021, Netflix hit 209 million subscribers, up by 13% since 2020.

EOTO Presentation Reflection

One thing I learned from the EOTO presentations is that Youtube sold to Google in 2006 because of litigation costs. I grew up watching Youtube, so I knew that the copyright issue was prevalent. Google already owned Youtube when I started watching, so I never considered the copyright issue to be that detrimental to the business. It makes sense, however, that they took the $1.65 billion offer and got to avoid all of the legal trouble that followed. 

Another modern form of communication that I learned about was Netflix. I knew that Netflix started as mailing DVD's, but I didn't realize how early they began streaming services. I binged my first Netflix show in 2013 when I was 12 years old. Netflix began offering streaming in 2007. They had already been streaming movies and TV shows for 6 years at that point. It's incredible the influence streaming has had on our generation.

One historical form of communication that I learned about was the Printing Press, or rather, the inventor. The Printing Press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1453. He died in 1468 before seeing the true success of his invention. Then, in 1517, Martin Luther used Gutenberg's press to print his 95 Theses which essentially started Protestantism. So, thanks to Gutenberg, people began reading the bible on their own and thinking for themselves.

The Progressive Era

The issue with dissenting opinions is one of culture and not law necessarily. The Government has created the opportunity for a marketplace of ideas, and it is our responsibility to maintain it. 

That is what the ideal would look like. In reality, the Government is intervening unconstitutionally and has been since our founding. Starting with the Aliens and Sedition act and all the way up to the Twitter Files, the Government is always trying to skew public opinion in its favor. 

Of course the Government wants public support, but the whole point of our system is that the people control the Government, not the other way around. So, when websites like The American Conservative and voicing their opinions against the Government, their articles will not be circulated as much on the internet. 

The effect of this on our modern political culture has been sad. By only seeing one view, many people think it is ridiculous to think something else. When it comes to war, it is especially important to have all sides heard because this comes back and effects every citizen, physically or economically. We are not internally free if there is not an accessible marketplace of ideas. In 2023, this marketplace should be the most accessible its every been, but it seems the opposite is true.