Week 13: My Online Footprint

Today, for the first time since I made an Instagram account in 2013, I made my account private. My account isn't really scandalous, in my opinion. Here it is actually, I have nothing to hide, enough that I was public for the first 7 years I had it....

If we are talking about ads, my online presence could reveal a lot actually. I am of drinking age, and have shared a few tasteful pictures (I think) with a beer in my hand. I like to travel, and do often, or at least my feed makes it seem so because I post a lot of pictures from the past. I am active, and because of where I work, might be willing to pay an unreasonable amount for supplements (I would not by the way, but the membership price at the gym I work at is pretty hefty). It shows that I am in school and a sorority, which might put me in a clear target market group for girls my age.

I used to have a website/blog that is still active, and has a general biography about me, a video of my college junior voice recital, and some pictures for my portfolio. HOWEVER, early in my college years, I used the blog to post about everything, like a journal, and my emotional journey through college, and I wonder how future employers will see that. 

In total I have:

• Two emails
• Facebook
• Twitter (that I haven't used since high school, but has some of my firm political beliefs)
• Instagram
• Pinterest
• Snapchat
• TikTok
• YouTube

I mainly have only given my email to shopping sites to receive discounts... although I realize that is a breach of privacy.

There are many times I stop and think that I might want to delete things off of my feed, or become more picky about it. The thing is, I am under the firm belief that once things are on the internet they can not be deleted.

Now, the final, and I think most difficult question to answer. Does social media affect people's mental health? Yes and no. There are studies done by professors at Harvard (linked below), that have proven when a person receives a like or view or positive comment on a post, they receive a small dopamine rush, that can mimic joy. On the other hand, there is the potential of a depressed feeling, or FOMO (fear of missing out) that can occur when someone is not receiving the same amount of attention as others on social media, or they feel like other people's highlight reels are more glamorous than theirs.

I often feel myself getting in a depressive state when I am on social media too much, especially during these quarantine times, where social media is all some of us have to be connected to the real world.

Without social media, we would not be where we are today, or as interconnected as we are to our friends and families across the globe. However... I think after this assignment, I might take a little break. 😅

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/facebook-users-still-dont-know-how-facebook-works/580546/
https://www.fastcompany.com/90315706/kids-parents-social-media-sharing
https://www.fastcompany.com/90359992/an-ad-tech-pioneer-on-where-our-data-economy-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it

Week 12: Why Snapchat Caught On So Quick

This week, let's start with what Wikipedia.org describes as the last wave of people to pick up an innovation, "laggards". This made me laugh, and then immediately think of my mom (sorry mom).

So why did Snapchat catch on so quick, in comparison to other older innovations? My theory, and I think that this could be applied to many of the other new innovations, is the fact that these innovations were able to be adopted by younger generations, and at the time, the older generations were unaware of what they were. I remember downloading snapchat on my i-pad because my parents said I was too young to have a phone or Facebook. It was a way for my friends and I to communicate quickly instead of EMAILING or being on a texting app. That's right, my friends and I email IM-ed. My theory, is that the early adapters are almost always primarily younger people, the same way tiktok and YouTube took off. Snapchat filled a need, that texting could not. Communicating while being able to see someone's facial expressions.

The downside to all of this, is the fact that our young generations are easily addicted and affected by these applications, and although it brings our world closer together, I think we have yet to see all of the negative effects of growing up with technology.


Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
https://platformmagazine.org/2015/02/13/the-evolution-of-snapchat/

Week 11: Eight Values of Free Expression: Individual Self-Fulfillment

I chose to talk about Individual Self-Fulfillment (aka self-actualization) this week. I did some separate research on this, specifically in the terms of Psychology.

An article I found by Psychology Today and found that a man named Abraham Maslow puts self-actualization as #5 on his psychological hierarchy of needs, meaning that once all other basic needs have been fulfilled, the final step is to reach your full personal potential.

The article goes on to say that "Maslow identified self-actualizing people as individuals who are highly creative, who have peak experiences, and who are able to resolve the dichotomies inherent in opposite contraries such as those constituted by “freedom and determinism," “the conscious and the unconscious," as well as “intentionality and a lack of intentionality.”"

Essentially Maslow sees creativity as being one of the main traits of someone who has reached self-actualisation.

This value really stuck out to me. As a communication major, I often feel like my projects and passions are what makes me, me. I also have a firm belief that we should use our platforms to spread messages of meaning and value.

I think it goes along with the phrase "If you love what you do you'll never work a day in your life". I can easily say that the one time in my life where I felt the most productive and fulfilled was when I was studying abroad, and creating new content with my friends every day. Where I felt comfortable with the uncomfortable, and not knowing what was next. I think that the concept of free speech giving you the ability to be autonomous and have dignity holds true especially in this society where every person gets a platform, with social media. It definitely is a monumental step in the history of our country.

And the reality is, that people still post whatever they want, even if they know no one else may read it or care. As humans we have a desire to express ourselves.

I spent a long time trying to figure out what this value means, but I realized that there isn't a right answer here, and it's more about what it means to me.

This is Nathaniel Drew. It's safe to say he is my favorite Youtuber. He has spent the better part of his adult life traveling the world learning languages and experiencing new cultures, and I felt like these two videos really pertained to this topic, and inspire me. I don't know Nathaniel personally, but in my mind he has reached self-actualization.
This first video is called "How to Create the Life You Want (And Find Your North Star)", and talks about what it means to feel fulfilled, and like you are doing the right thing. It is definitely worth the watch, if not for the intellectual content, then for the incredible footage and editing.

This video is called "For People Feeling Lost in Life", and I think that this is something for someone who doesn't know where to start. For someone who has the desire to feel self-fulfilled, but feels lost in the process.

I hope that my thoughts resonate with you, but I think that what is important is what it means to the individual, and what is special about the Eight Values of Free Expression, is that they are interpreted differently by each person.


Source:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-and-psychopathology/201308/the-theory-self-actualization

Week 6: EOTO Timeline; Typewriters

My communication timeline project was on the invention of the typewriter, and I'm going to give you some background on the invention of the typewriter, how it developed, and why I think it has a place on the table of important communication inventions.

The first patent was acquired by an Englishman named Henry Mills in 1714. The patent was worded as "an artificial machine or method for the impressing or transcribing of letters singly or progressively one after another".

However, the first typewriter was not actually created until 1808 by an Italian man named Pellegrino Turri for his blind friend Countess Carolina Fantoni da Fivizzano. There are no photographs or drawings of the machine, but there is evidence of letters that were written on the machine.

A somewhat hard to read letter sent by the Countess 

Christopher Latham Sholes was accredited with inventing the first typewriter in 1876, and his second model, patented that same year, could easily type faster than it would take to write with pen.

He signed with the manufacturer Remington and Sons, and this is one of the first typewriters of theirs that went on the market:






Christopher Latham Sholes is also accredited with inventing QWERTY keyboards.


The final typewriter that was incredibly memorable was The Daugherty Visible, which was invented in 1891. What makes this typewriter special is the ability to see the typebars hit the paper, instead of resting below the platen. This way the user wouldn't have to wait until the next line or two to see if they made a mistake/ in general they are able to see what they are typing almost simultaneously.
All this talk is important, but the best way to understand what I'm talking about is to watch this short video of how typewriters work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkUXn5bOwzk

Finally, let's talk about what typewriters did for the development of communication over time. Of course, one point I already touched on was the invention of the QWERTY keyboard, the classic set-up that makes it easy for us to type with a "home base" and something that is universal to most english speakers. The typewriter sped up the process of writing, and made it easier for the consumer to read, versus trying to decipher a possibly difficult handwritten note. 
One negative is that it was hard to fix mistakes, in comparison to a word document on a computer where it can be continuously edited and you only need to print one page versus retyping a whole page on a typewriter, or using white-out.

Typewriters helped women make a stronger presence in the workplace, they were able to work on the skill, and it gave them an opportunity to work in an office versus factories. There were jobs specifically geared towards transcribing on a typewriter.

Like most inventions, when the typewriter was first introduced, it was incredibly expensive for most of the general public, and was mainly used by businesses at first, but eventually, as they found ways to make the manufacturing price less expensive, the typewriter was a household item, and now a collectable for many fanatics. 

The typewriter led to the eventual invention of the computer, and was an important stepping stone to the world of communication we know today!


Sources:

https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-history.html

https://www.britannica.com/technology/typewriter

Week 5: Anti-War and The American Conservative

So I looked into Antiwar.com...

Now, I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent person, obviously acknowledging the fact that there's never a limit of knowledge to learn, but I have to admit what I did today. See below...

  

And I have to admit, it took me scrolling through the first few search results to understand the problem with this logic.

If you haven't caught on yet, the flaw in this reasoning is that because the government *MIGHT* be controlling the media, I obviously wouldn't find anything on it because they would stop it from being easy to find... Just like how Dr. Smith is suggesting that there is a reason why we don't hear about anti-war opinions in the media.

I myself have always been anti-war, but I was always led to believe by the way other people talked about it, that it was a lack of patriotism on my end. If it were ever brought up to someone who had a relative or friend who served, they would turn it on me, making it seem like just because I was anti-war, I was insinuating that men who have died at war for our country had died for nothing.

Oh my goodness, just because I am anti-war does not mean that I think the men that have died for our country did it all for nothing. I honor their sacrifice, by being the best citizen I can be, and being active in the future of our country.

I wonder, in the same way that people who don't like the negative side of politics don't vote, the anti-war population doesn't look into anti-war opinions because it is discouraging to find the pro-war opinions. I know for myself, that I can't stand watching the news, because it upsets me, so I typically don't know what is going on with our military. I guess even though I am anti-war I had never thought about it.

This post was particularly hard for me to write, not only because of the vulnerability, but the fact that in the last post, I defended Google and Facebook because we "give" them their power. However, we give the government/media its power, but there still should be checks and balances on both. What will we have to do to be rid of this propaganda?

Sources:

https://www.antiwar.com/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/

Week 4: Should we trust Facebook and Google?

This week I read two articles on Facebook and Google, and the privacy that we give up as consumers who use these websites.

Let's start with Google. The article I read from CBS provided information on 48 states and their Attorney General's decisions to commence investigations into Google and it's practices in ad generation on their search engine as well as well as all of their domination over the internet, including Google Photos, Google Chrome, and Youtube. The argument is that the site's dominance over the whole internet and the lack of competition provides an unfair advantage to larger companies buying ads, and the Google programs that are promoted above all others when someone uses the Google search engine.
I can see where these governments are coming from, saying that Google may be breaking antitrust laws, however I would argue that we as citizens are giving Google this power, in the same way that someone would rather order multiple different types of things off of Amazon VS making 5 orders off of different websites for the small brands. We chose to trust Google a long time ago, to be a large provider of our information, just like how many US citizens choose to only watch one news network because they only want to hear news they agree with.

The Facebook article on CNet caught my eye because I recently watched The Social Network on Netflix, and in the article about Google, the expert Roger Chang (who is FROM CNet news, by the way) refers to Facebook and Google as originally being seen as "darlings, and success stories in America", and have now done a "180" as far as public trust, and I think that's so on the nose. Partially because of the way that Facebook was founded, just by some guy in his college dorm room (hard to believe that one of my classmates could be doing something of equal merit right now), we want to root for the underdog, but then out comes this movie highlighting him as a greedy businessman with lack of social grace.

Here is Mark Zuckerberg, as a sophomore at Harvard

Suddenly the narrative has changed. This site that was originally built for a college campus now holds the information from millions of users all around the world (where they work, how many kids they have, the things they care about, and how they are influenced).

The article on CNet said there were two separate databases published to the internet, full of thousands of Facebook users' phone numbers, and Facebook refused to make a statement.

The question stands: will it ever really be possible for one website to house that many people's information safely and ethically? And how stupid are we as consumers for feeding into it?

Sources:
https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-user-phone-numbers-still-online/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-antitrust-probe-48-u-s-states-launch-antitrust-investigation-of-google-dominance-in-search-ads-and-data/

Week 3: The United States Supreme Court

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court has the ability to completely changed the laws in the United States Constitution, although they have the ability to re-evaluate decisions that have been previously made, the main thing that they are now recognized for, is deciding if the Constitution that was created 200 years ago still relates to the America that we know today, an America that allows all legal citizens to vote, and gives equal rights to all people.

The original court took almost every case that it was sent, but now, the court only takes 100 cases or less a year. This gives them a sort of respect that they demand. The laws that they now address, are based on "theoretical, rhetorical" decision, that is mixed between laws, but also their opinions, that when they make a decision, will be written. It could take months before they make a compromise, but eventually, these arguments can sway the justices, which is crazy, and why they are given so much time in the edit process before it is published!

The main part that confuses me about the Supreme Court, is the fact that they make decisions on laws, but that they are also opinion based, and I suspect that this will constantly be something that I struggle to understand throughout the entirety of my citizenship in this country and on this earth; things that are opinions can be proven or disproven by the law, depending on the interpretation. The constitution can be interpreted the same way the bible can be, and laws were written to be incredibly elusive, so that they are morphed into the time we live in, and the most just decision based on the situation.

I like these photos, because I think they relatively reflect what we still think of when we see a court in our minds (or on TV), and even though as a society we are constantly evolving and molding the Constitution to fit our values, we still sit on the same foundations and principles.

The youngest Supreme Court Justice was Joseph Story, appointed at the age of 32, but that is extremely young for a Supreme Court Justice, and most Justices have been in government related jobs for 30 years before they are appointed. We trust the Supreme Court Justices to make decisions regarding the future of our country, and it is a great honor and HUGE power that we give them.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRoXYRsaeo&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca8qSuWxcG8&feature=youtu.be