My Relationship With Technology

 

Technology has revolutionized every aspect of modern life, shaping the way we communicate, work, learn, and interact with the world. We have always been aware of this, it's nothing new. From the dawn of its creation, technology has always been the driving force for human progression. Whether it be the creation of the printing press, the internet, the telephone, or even artificial intelligence, technology has always pushed the boundaries of what is possible. Thanks to this class, I have learned that anything is possible, and nothing is unimaginable.

At its core, technology was a tool that was designed to solve problems and meet the wants and needs of human beings. Throughout history, technological advancements have led to overall greater efficiency and productivity in nearly every field. 

The Industrial Revolution is a prime example of that. With the creation of factories and machines, products were created in large batches at a fraction of the time it would take its competitors living in rural areas to do so. Production went from a singular individual, working on a singular product to multiple people, with the help of machines, working on different parts and products at the same time. The revolution also changed our overall view of society, with the creation of new jobs, a new idea of what a typical workday looked like, and even an individual's place within society in terms of status.

On the surface, technology, in particular, the internet, has provided us with the ability to connect with billions of people worldwide. In medicine, technology has improved treatment options, and patient outcomes and created new machines and tools that have saved lives. 

But for every positive aspect, there is always a negative one. Social media is one of the most controversial outcomes of technology because although it has improved communication and our access to information in the past few years, created millions of jobs, and provided financial opportunities to the average person, it has also led to impacts on our mental health, and privacy. Research has shown us that constant exposure to certain images and lifestyles on platforms like TikTok and Instagram can lead to unrealistic ideas and/or expectations, as well as an increase in anxiety and depression. Heavy social media use, especially for developing girls, like myself, can lead to eating disorders and poor views of our bodies, feeling inadequate in our overall self-worth, and this outrageous idea of needing to be perfect.

Then there is also the obvious, which is that social media has affected the power and beauty of face-to-face social interactions. People are less honest and open with themselves and with the people that they interact with, simply because they have a screen to hide behind. There is less empathy in our society, people are less kind and caring and simply live in this mindset where it's every man for himself and nothing else matters.

In the past couple of years, I have found myself gradually stepping into the world of content creation and it has been such an eye-opening experience. To go from gaining inspiration, joy, and new perspectives, to having the potential to share that and create it for other people is remarkable and empowering. While my ultimate dream is to attend law school, a goal that I am actively working towards by being in college and taking this class, I have come to realize that social media offers financial opportunities and experiences I never imagined. I have yet to really dive into all of the things that I can do with this platform that I have created. As of right now, it's simply about sharing what my day-to-day life looks like as a sophomore at High Point juggling my education and extracurriculars. 

What excites me the most is not the money aspect, but the fact that it's about having a community to stand with, being able to express myself, and also having the opportunity to explore a creative side of myself that complements my academics. 

Law school is my primary focus, I have worked too hard to walk away from it. But I think it's nice knowing that there is something else out there that I love that can set me up for financial stability and future prospects.

I was always afraid of using AI or any websites that were rooted in it because I was worried that they would know too much about me, or steal my personal information. However, when used responsibly, AI has been such an incredible tool for me to use to enhance my academic journey. Now I use it almost every day to support my studies in law and psychology. 

In my legal studies, I love using Chatgpt to help me summarize long complex cases, define legal terms I am unfamiliar with, and even hypothesize different potential outcomes of certain rulings or laws so that I can see and understand both sides. I love being introduced to new perspectives and ideas, that I wouldn't have thought about otherwise, because I think it's important for me to consider all of the facts, to form an opinion or to take a certain stance. The conversations that I have in class are important and they matter, and I need to know as much as I can, to be as passionate as I can. 

In my psychology courses, the use of AI is just as important. It helps me to break down medical jargon that is associated with psychological disorders and illnesses. I do this so that I can understand what it is that my professor is talking about in the lectures. I have learned that the key to being successful in classes having to do with the human body or mind is to really understand the concepts that are being talked about. The only way that this is going to happen is if you have examples that can help you see what it is that you're talking about. So I use AI to generate examples and scenarios.

I am constantly reminded through the application of technology that the world is ever-evolving and with change comes the opportunity to learn and grow. Technology is here to stay, whether we like it or not, and it will only continue to grow from here. Is that scary? Absolutely. But it's the things that scare us, that make us who we are. When we find that one thing that terrifies us and choose to face it away, we are given a new sense of strength. 

Challenges teach us more about ourselves as we grow and encounter them. The key is to embrace technology and let its power provide you with something positive so that you don't just adapt to the changing world, but also thrive. 

Reaction: Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers are perceived as heroes struggling with life-altering dilemmas throughout film and TV. Through portrayed stories, these people struggle with the tough choices laid out before them. On the one hand, whistleblowers believe it's their duty to shed light on and expose organizations to corruption and injustices. On the other, however, they want to keep themselves and those they love out of harm's way, because once that Pandora's box is opened, you can never go back.

Making the ultimate sacrifice is always challenging. Hollywood, a dramatic outlet, allows us as watchers to understand how and why a certain individual chooses to make these decisions. And in the spirit of Hollywood, whistleblowing is always taken to the extreme. 

The extent of my knowledge surrounding whistleblowers came from what I saw on TV. The concept was always more dangerous and dramatic in my mind. The assumption, at least for me, was that if an individual went up against an organization or leaked certain damaging information, they would end up dead. But that is rarely the case.

Through education and culture, the names Snowden and Ellsberg came up a lot. They were some of the more famous whistleblowers the world had seen. 

So, what exactly is whistleblowing? Well, it's when someone, who works for an organization, leaks any act of wrongdoing to the public. Whistleblowing is more common than I assumed, mainly because it can occur in almost any situation. A few examples include exposing tax fraud, bad accounting, bad pollution, and embezzlement, to more extreme cases such as those involving Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, and Chelsea Manning.

In these extreme cases, the results ended in many being charged with violating the Espionage Act, which I was not aware of. I assumed that whistleblowers are protected by law and, for the most part, they are. In the U.S., several laws have been put into place, at all levels, to protect those who leak information. But these laws, much like everything else in the legal world are not black and white. Yes, there are protection laws, but each one is unique and has its own set of rules and policies. 

In some of the more famous cases, the whistleblower has been charged with and punished for committing acts of treason. Edward Snowden was charged with espionage but fled the country before he was caught, and is now living as an exile in Russia. Snowden was a computer intelligence consultant working for the NSA when he blew the whistle and leaked information to the Guardian and the New York Post. He released to the world, the biggest piece of information, regarding technology and government surveillance. Because of Snowden, the U.S. was made aware that the government was collecting data and information about people's personal lives.

Chelsea Manning was a U.S. Army intelligence analyst, who made known to the public, the largest set of classified documents, containing details about the abuse, torture, and detention of prisoners. Like Snowden, she was charged with violating the Espionage Act, however, unlike him, she was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison.  In his final days of presidency, Obama unexpectedly granted her clemency. Today she still uses her voice to advocate for the freedom of information. 

The results of Manning and Snowden's actions resulted in big debates being spread all throughout the U.S. on privacy, government surveillance, and security. The results of Daniel Ellsberg's actions led to the extension of the First Amendment. 

Ellsberg, a former military analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971. These papers proved that everyone working for the Johnson Administration had lied about the scope and actions of our political and military involvement in the Vietnam War. Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property. However, due to the Watergate scandal, the charges were dropped.  Thanks to him, a landmark decision was made, and the First Amendment now includes the right to free press against a prior restraint by the government. 

My understanding of whistleblowing has certainly changed, after listening to the presentation and going off on my own to do more research. It's a high-stakes necessary role in our society. Sometimes, sacrifices need to be made, and whistleblowing is a choice, that sparks debates about certain truths that most would rather not speak about. Despite the risk, whistleblowing can check certain powers, and hold organizations and governments accountable, and in a world where transparency is lacking, we should applaud whistleblowers and thank them, not punish or try to silence them.

  

 

 

 

EOTO: Net Neutrality Policy

 

In 1996, the Telecommunications Act was passed. The passing of this law aimed to deregulate the industry and promote competition. This meant that any individual was allowed to enter any communications business and any business was now allowed to compete in any market with any individual. As time passed and the industry grew there was worry that internet service providers( ISPs) could prioritize content and block access to certain sites. 

Tim Wu, a law professor, at Columbia University first coined the term 'Net Neutrality' in 2003, giving a name and a platform to this future ground-breaking policy. Net neutrality essentially is a policy that states all internet service providers must treat all data and information in the same way. Providers are not allowed to treat different types of data differently and must provide equal access to the Internet regardless of the device, application, or platform used. 

The beauty of this policy is that not only must data be treated and provided in an equal manner, but providers must also not block certain content, or participate in paid favoritism. 

As long as this policy is held in place, services like Verizon can't speed up its access to websites it owns such as Yahoo or AOL, and it also can't slow down traffic or charge extra fees to other major websites it doesn't own such as Google or Youtube.

 This policy, much like the rest of them, has its advantages and disadvantages. As a policy, it does its job by protecting and ensuring the best for the American people. The basis of the idea is to guarantee equal internet access for all. Without it, providers would have the ability and the power to create a "fast lane" for those who can afford it-- affecting those who are struggling financially--, make it harder for small businesses to compete with one another, and even prioritize certain types of data and traffic over others. 

Those who are for this policy believe that it promotes a diversity of viewpoints, by protecting free speech, which is critical to a healthy and stable democracy. It protects and promotes the ideas placed under the First Amendment, including the Marketplace of Ideas. All voices can have a platform and know that these services can't block or censor content that they disagree with. 

Those who are against the policy, make the argument that since ISPs are prevented from charging different prices for their services, it removes the incentives for the providers to innovate or invest in expanding their bandwidth and infrastructure. This policy in the end could have providers starting to charge based on the number of people using the network. 

Since the introduction of the term as a policy, there have been various political debates, with each president having differing opinions on where the policy should stand. The president that takes office has the power to endorse or cut this policy and whether we understand it or not, that decision has the power to change everything. Think about the elements of having an internet that is equal and unbiased. Every single individual living in this country, no matter of status, wealth, age, sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. has access and the opportunity to the internet that is free, efficient, and can be used as a platform for freedom. 

So what did each presidency endorse? In 2014 under the Obama Administration, the president endorsed his support for strong internet rules and for the first time called for these rules to be protected under Title II authority. Just a year later in 2015 the FCC passed the policy under the Title. This meant that the Internet was labeled as a common carrier and the administration made it clear that the importance of equal internet was a priority for them.

 However, things took a drastic turn when Trump took office, he had the FCC overturn the rules set into place by Obama. The FCC reclassified the service as an information source rather than a common carrier.

 Today under the Biden Administration, the president signed an executive order forcing the FCC to reinstate the rules. So you can see that the opinions and beliefs of government officials hold significant power over the American people. It's better to have a president who believes in the significance and importance of this policy, rather than someone who will turn it away. 

With the upcoming election, if Trump wins we could possibly see this policy get overturned yet again, and if Harris wins we could see this policy staying for years to come. But how does it affect different categories of people? In terms of rich vs poor, without net neutrality, those struggling financially are completely screwed. 

If there is a tier system, they will lose out on job opportunities, basic services, and even educational resources. Only the wealthy will have the ability to pay for these services making them once again the elite. Those in the LGBTQ+ community use the internet to survive and to let their voices be heard. If ISPs are taken away more than likely these voices and platforms who try to show love and support for the community will be censored.  Their content and services will be blocked, and it will make it harder for people in this community to connect with others and provide support, information, and resources. 

If net neutrality were to be overturned again, the internet would be slowed and certain websites could be blocked affecting the educational resources the growing generation would have access to. Our voices would be censored in yet another way because the power of censorship is growing, and if we keep going at the rate that we are, no one will have any form of freedom. Keeping websites and services open and equal to all, is not simply just about online shopping or having fast internet. It's about being informed and aware of everything that is going on in this country, promoting creativity and thought,  and protecting our First Amendment rights. If that gets taken away who's to say what will be next. 

Anti-War Voices

 

Anti-war opinions matter. Not something you hear every day, is it? But it's true, these opinions and perspectives matter, simply because they challenge the narratives of mainstream media. America loves to get involved in wars that either directly affect us or don't. But no one stops to think about the human cost, and no one, especially the government wants to hear about peaceful alternatives. 

The government's decision to get involved in the Vietnam War sparked a lot of controversy among the American people, leading thousands to protest the war. Many viewed the war as morally unjust due to the outrageous number of civilian casualties, and the huge fact that the government lied and deceived us all. The government misrepresented and misinformed the American people regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the state of the war, which acted as the fuel to an already lit fire. At this point, people lost trust in the government and took their anger to the streets demanding that our troops be brought home safe and sound. 

As a result of the war, millions of veterans came home struggling to re-enter civilian life and became damaged in more ways than one. Anti-war opinions should be broadcasted more in mainstream media because they would act as a healthy balance in comparison to pro-war segments. It feels like everything in the news today is about war, whether it be between Russia and Ukraine or between Israel and Palestine. War is all around us, and we can't stop it, but we can allow for multiple voices to be heard. Diversity can heal the public, in the sense that listening to both sides will allow for a more deeper understanding of what is happening.

Why is it, as an individual living in a country, that upholds(or is supposed to) First Amendment rights allowing us to freely express our opinions, I find myself scouring the internet and having to rely on obscure websites like Anti-War and the American Conservative?

One of the biggest reasons, which's not all that surprising is the fact that there are very few companies that own all of the media outlets, from where we receive our information. So the news becomes very biased and very much aligned with government policies and military actions. I know that if I turn on the TV and click on CNN, NBC, BBC, or any other media outlet the message being spread about war, is in favor of it, not against it.  If the news outlets are controlled by big companies it makes it that much harder to slip in anti-war opinions. 

Our government and other powerful organizations suppress anti-war opinions. Throughout history, the government has been known the throw people in jail and punish those who voice their anti-war opinions. Today, that is not what it looks like however, censorship is real and prominent. The government doesn't want to hear the hard truths of society, they just want to hear and broadcast what the majority thinks and what is popular politically. Which, then limits the voices of the very limited group of people who are affected and feel strongly about war. 

For every negative, there must be a postive. No one should have to go to an obsecure wesbite just to voice their opinion or listen to others. But unfortunately this is what it has come to, so we have to make the best of it. These kind of websites provide an open platform for people to voice their thoughts without feeling like they will be censored. 

Mainstream media is not the only way, one can receive information. Alternative platforms such as blog, podcasts, social media channels etc. are on the rise in this country. And the beauty of these platforms is that they will do what mainstream media refuses to do, which is tell the truth, something that the government is terrified off. The government hates the truth being spread, they spend more money and time censoring people, than being honest. Those who have strong anti-war opinions seek these outlets first, becasue not many people know about it, so the government is not worried about the American people getting "posioned" and changing their minds. 

Diffusions of Innovations

                                                                           

 Everett Rogers, a professor in rural psychology, coined the theory of Diffusion of Innovations. He explained this phenomenon, by stating that individuals living in a society will automatically fit into one of five categories. These categories are reflected by how early or how late individuals are willing to adopt or accept a new innovation. 

The innovators are the very first people to adopt an innovation. These people are the creative risk-takers of the world and are responsible for introducing and spreading the innovation to others. 

The early adopters follow, playing a key role in endorsing the innovation. They are responsible for closing the gap between the "trendsetters" and the larger majority.

 

Those within the early majority group, take their time making decisions and will only adopt a product once they are convinced of its benefits. 

While the late majority are much more resistant to change. For individuals, in this category, an innovation or product must be well-tested and widely used before they even consider using it.

 At the very bottom of this theory, we have the laggards, who are extremely resistant to change. These are the types of people who have minimal exposure to media and are very unaware of what is going on in terms of creation and advancement. In most cases, these laggards are aware but want nothing to do with this new change, so they refuse to adopt.   

So what does this theory look like when applied to an actual innovation?  Let's use the printing press as an example. From an obvious standpoint Bi Sheng, Wang Chen, and Johannes Gutenberg would be considered to be the primary innovators.  They took a significant risk each on their own to develop multiple versions of a movable type of printing press. Innovators outside of them would have been those who experimented with ink and paper. 

Some of the early adopters included university professors, reformers,  entrepreneurs, and early printing houses. Professors and scholars were more than eager to get their hands on the press. They saw this as an opportunity to spread knowledge and education to those who did not have access beforehand.  Martin Luther became the first best-selling author thanks to the printing press. Luther used the press as an opportunity to bring the Protestant faith to the frontline of Europe. He posted his '95 Theses' on the door of a church and within a few weeks it was being printed and shared all throughout Europe.

Business owners would recognize the monetary profit that they could receive if they invested in this creation. Printed materials could be used for advertising, record-keeping, and even communication, so owners would start to invest in pamphlets and books. Meanwhile, early printing houses took the biggest risk of all adopting this innovation right from the start. Printing house owners invested in the printing technology, and became eager to produce and sell a variety of texts.

The early majority were those who waited a little while before choosing to invest. These would mainly include middle-class citizens, libraries, and educational institutions. The printing press increased the literacy rates of individuals, so much of the middle class could now have access to and the opportunity to read and purchase books. Following the overwhelming increase in the public, libraries began to invest in printed works to not only enhance the reputation of the institution but to support the growth of education.

On the opposite side of the theory, we have those who were not as eager and who didn't see the overall greatness of the printing press. The late majority consisted of those who lived in areas where it was not really needed ie. farmers. Those living in isolated and rural areas thrived and lived off of word-by-mouth and handwritten texts. Religious organizations were also late to the game because they were worried that a mass spread of printed texts would spread a variety of radical ideas. They would later adopt it to help further and benefit their own religious beliefs.  

At the very bottom, we have the laggards and those are the last to adopt, and in some cases never adopt. In the case of the printing press, the laggards could be considered those who had jobs as scribes, or copiers. They believed that their jobs and livelihoods were at risk, so they didn't support the idea in protest. Individuals living in super remote areas oftentimes hold onto culture and tradition, which leaves no room for advancement. One common laggard, that seems to follow every innovation is the older generation who seem to never have an interest in getting involved. Society is constantly changing, and very few hold onto tradition. So I admire those who have the confidence to stand their ground and show the rest of us, that while this new fancy innovation does make life easier to live, you don't need it. We all forget that we managed to live perfectly normal and successful lives without these things and we still can. 

Reaction: U.S Postal Service

When I think about the creation and evolution of technologies, and how they have affected the way we as a society communicate, never once did I think to consider the power of the U.S. Postal Service. In today's world, everything is digital so the postal service as a means of communication is no longer needed.

 Today the postal service is mainly used as a way for individuals to send and receive packages, and less about spreading news and information. So I was shocked to find out that during the 18th century, the US Postal Service was considered to be a crucial form of communication. 

The creation of the US Postal Service in 1775, became a pivotal, if not the most, pivotal moment in American history. It reflected the growing need for a reliable form of communication and the growth of technological advancements. 

Having been formed just a few months before the Revolutionary War, the Postal Service couldn't have come at a more perfect time. Once the war began, the need for an effective and efficient way of communicating became necessary. News and information needed to be sent out and received as fast as possible, since the surivial of the colonies depended on it. It's amazing to watch how the world works because you never realize how much you may need something or how much it's going to change your life until you are exposed to it. 

Before the service, mail was delivered by locals either on foot or by horseback and it would take weeks if not months for it to arrive at its destination. Was it inconvenient? Absolutely. But it's just how the world operated back then. There wasn't a need for rapid change. Society didn't know any better and on some level we can relate and understand what it's like to have to be patient in the face of something new. We can also understand the fear of being introduced to a new wave of communication and not knowing what the outcome will look like. 

What I was also shocked to learn about was the fact that Ben Franklin was appointed the role of the first Postmaster General. Taking on this role, reflected who Ben was as a person and who he would be, as the first leader of this country. It's very comforting to know that he had this job before becoming president,because it made it very clear that he was a leader and had the future country's interests at heart. 

Franklin recognized the need and the importance of having fast communication within the colonies during the war, so he established offices and hired locals to run them. This demonstrated his leadership skills and his ability to create solutions. 

His work with the Service, allowed him to connect with the American people, beyond just building his network or political career. It was mainly about showing getting people to know who he is, see him in a leadership role and also understand what he stood for. So when the war ended, people would know who to vote for. People could confidently put their lives into the hands of Ben Franklin knowing that he would lead this new country into uncharted waters. 

 

 

 

Living in the Age of AI

At it's core there has always been a complicated history between the man and the machine. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, we as a society have subconsiously grown to fear technology. We don't know the full extent of what artifical intelligence can do. So how can those in power ask us to trust technology confidently? 

Venture capitalists, tech CEOs, and those taking over Silicon Valley base their entire lives off of the newest form of technology and they make billions. Kai-Fu Lee says that within in the next 15 years, 50% of jobs will be threatened by AI. That is not the shocking part, we as a society knew that with the introduction of technology, at one point or another AI was going to take over human jobs.  But I think that it's suprising that we don't talk about that enough. Let's say we do trust AI, let's say for the case of this argument, AI will not take over the human race, but it will take over human jobs what happens then? Do we blame the billionares for making us believe this phenonom, or is it our fault for not listing to our guts? Or has this always been the path that AI was going to take us on?

What I admire about Kai-Fu Lee, is that even those he has investments in artifical intelligence he doesn't sugarcoat the truth. He is very aware of the dangers surrounding it and he wants to warn society of the inevitable. He understands and is more than aware that one of the negative impacts is the decline in human jobs. Jerry Kaplan, a computer scientist and entrepreneur, on the other hand belives in something entirely different. He said something that I think everyone should take away from this new scary era that we are living in. He said that yes it is true that AI is more than likely going to take 50% of the current jobs in society. But with each decade, with each technoloigcal advancment, the jobs of the past are no longer in the present. Think about it operators, travel agents, secretaries( is mass batches) have now seized to exist thanks technoloy. So what makes this technology different from the rest? Why are we now more afraid of AI and our jobs being stolen then ever before? 

Researchers and scientists, have done the work and have connected this new wave of technology, to the Revolution. Maybe as a society, in order to get over this fear that we have, we need to treat AI like the revolution. Yes it was scary for millions of people, we had never had this much access to technology before. We were entering new territory. But even though it was a threat to society and espeically to the farmers , it created a whole new realm of jobs and possibilites. 

 

So I think that we need to let go of this fear, that AI is going to take our jobs, because they are, its going to happen whether we like it or not. But it doesn't mean we are all going to be without jobs. I think instead, what we need to be afraid of is AI relating to the human mind. The popular game Go is played in China, Japan and South Korea. To those who play it is about more then jusy playing a silly game, it is about learning strategy and developing as a person. AlphaGo was the first to introduce a form of artifical intelligence that could mimic the nueral pathways of a human brain. When tested out against a human being, AlphaGo and AI won and I think that this concept, this theory is the scariest of them all. 

This idea that somehow AI could micmic a human in anyway is teriffying. All I can think about is every movie where the robots have taken over the world. The scientists have said on numerous occasions throughout this documentary that we need to be okay with this technology, and I understand it in terms of job displacement. But we have barely scratched the surface in terms of what AI can do. So how can we be sure and how can we be expected to believe that there isn't even the slighest possibility that artifical intelligence could replace a human being. They may not be able to convey or understand human emotion but it is clear that they can think and come up with solutions and ideas that humans would have never been able to do in hundreds of years. AlphaGo is a perfect example of that, because it created a strategy that in the hundreds of years that this game is played no human ever thought of. 

Why is this not a fear that is awknowledged more? I am more scared of AI attempting to play the role of a human being and manipulate others for a unkown greater outcome, than I am of it taking my job. To say that AI will not can not replace humans is crazy on some level, because what if it does happen? What if the technology gets to be that good that it has to ability to take control of the humans that are controlling? 

I just think that there are a lot of unknown factors connected to AI and no one is 100% confident in their answers and at the end of the day we should be scared of artifical intelligence. It's an unknown terroritory and not having the answers is better then giving false hope.