Final Blog Post - Technology and Its Partnership with Humanity

Another final exam week, another opportunity to finish strong. It's been a wild ride, and the blog posts here are being finished off with a bang! Throughout this class, I have used technology for various things. I've used it to look up information, to watch videos for material, to take notes, and write these blog posts. Technology has given me the ability to spark a love for music, keep in contact with my cousin through video games, and have some people to chat with when it gets late and there's no one else around. However, technology has also grown and metastasize an addiction to porn, an increased level of distractions, and a much higher possibility to be bullied. Personally, I do not have any active social media accounts, but I know people who put tons of effort into their social media life, and I feel that's unhealthy. This semester has really allowed me to reflect on tech's role in the world. Most importantly, was technology ever in a healthy relationship with humans, has it continued, or is it now unhealthy?

That question is a little tough to answer. The advancement of technology has been one of the greatest things to happen to society. It allows us to keep in touch with family much more easily, music is much easier to consume, and the creation of new software has allowed for entire industries to not only adjust their focus, but also be created from the ground up. The best example of this is Netflix, Hulu, and the other streaming services. These concepts were inconceivable when I was a kid. If you missed an episode, you better hope that you recorded it. If you didn't, then good luck watching it. Now with streaming services, my suitemates were able to binge watch the entire Game of Thrones series and The Walking Dead season 1. This allows people to have more shows to talk about and it can be great for small talk. For me personally, streaming services like Spotify have allowed me to build a love for music I never would have found, along with being able to find dozens of artists I likely would have never heard of without it. I absolutely adore some of the positive things that have been brought into the world by technology, and I do feel that we are better now than we were 10 years ago in many aspects of life. However, this does not come without problems, and some of them are massive.

When talking about social media, one stat that rang around in my head constantly was the following: suicide rates amongst children. I found that the rate of suicide amongst girls between 15 and 19 increased by 70% since 2009, and for girls ages 10-14, it was up by an insane 151% (US Sun). When I saw this stat, I almost had a mental breakdown because I immediately thought about my younger sister. I wish that was where it ended, but it is far from over for consequences. From data being stolen, to corruption amongst massive tech companies, to a heavy push for censorship in America, there are a lot of things that technology has brought to the table in a negative way. During a TED Talk, comedian James Veitch said, "The internet gave us access to everything, but it also gave everything else access to us" (The Agony of Trying to Unsubscribe, 1:57). From the mundane and annoying to the terrifyingly important, it holds true to this very moment. I hope one day we can find it in ourselves to boycott the malicious practices seen in things like Instagram and Facebook, and see a reformation of sorts for internet. There have been efforts with VPNs and browsers like Brave and Tor, but there is far more that can be done.

EOTO #2 Presentation Review

I greatly enjoyed each and every EOTO presentation given. Some were brand new to me, others I had already known a little bit about, but I learned something in each one. Personally, my favorite one to assess was the Confirmation Bias theory. 

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to only accept and promote the facts and evidence that support your claim, even if there is evidence that contradicts what you say. This can mean you are unaware of or are blatantly disregarding the facts of a particular topic, such as a court case or a political election. It is incredibly common in our society, and the media uses this theory to make money in some cases. That is not to say that every news outlet under the sun does it, but that does mean it is a common practice. It is also incredibly common for individuals. For example, someone who watches CNN probably won't watch Fox News because their beliefs don't align, and vice-versa. To this day it is still incredibly present and, because of how easy it is to fall into combined with the fact that people just generally are afraid to be wrong, it likely won't go away anytime soon, if ever.

Some excellent examples of confirmation bias are the gender wage gap, the 2016 election, and physical appearance. The gender pay gap is something that has existed for a long time, but it holds a lack of information. This has been debated and debunked multiple times. However, a lot of people still cling to this idea given how it has been promoted combined with the sexist connotations behind it being an emotional trigger for some people. The 2016 election radicalized the entire nation in two different directions. Liberals were downplaying the e-mail scandal for Clinton, whereas Conservatives blew it largely out of proportion. Either way, they were both somewhat incorrect and correct at the same time, but people started taking sides anyway. In terms of physical appearance, weight is a big factor of physical attraction. Both men and women generally won't date someone that is on the heavier side, especially if there do not seem to be large redeeming qualities. Being fat also shows a level of laziness and a lack of desire to take care of yourself, which can be seen with how they operate on a daily basis. It is unfortunate that confirmation bias exists, especially with its prominence, but it is just a constant of life.

EOTO 2: Net Neutrality

 The internet was created with the intention of being an open space, built on freedom for individuals to build a platform for themselves. However, this requires a connection, which is provided by Internet Service Providers, or ISPs. Some ISPs include T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T. Like any company, they want to make money. Because of no regulations on internet traffic, these ISPs could throttle different business and websites to favor those who pay them more money. In other words, ISPs were charging companies for quality connections. Obviously, changes needed to be made to the idea of free and open internet. That is where Net Neutrality enters.

Net Neutrality, in the simplest terms, is a concept that allows everybody to have equal access to the internet and equal connection quality. It became illegal to favor Google over Bing by throttling Bing's connection, just as an example. Net Neutrality was introduced in the mid 2010s by then president Barack Obama. The enforcement of Net Neutrality would be overseen by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, which means that ISPs would report to them in the event that they were caught committing one of these acts that are now crimes. However, with the help of one man, this would not last very long.

As I mentioned, the government agency tasked with overseeing the ISPs and their decisions is the FCC. In 2017, the agency needed a new chair. At this time, Donald Trump had recently been elected, and he chose to elect Ajit Pai for the role. Ajit Pai is an individual very much against Net Neutrality as it was implemented in 2015. Part of this may or may not be because he worked as a lawyer for Verizon for 2 years (no bias here of course). He had every intention to return the internet back to what it was in the 1990s. Naturally, anyone with an understanding of net neutrality immediately spoke out against it. Two of these people are Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee. Cerf is considered the "father of the internet" and Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. They claimed that the decisions being made were based within a misunderstanding of the internet itself. Unfortunately, none of it mattered, as Pai and the FCC rolled back regulations put in place by the Obama Administration and gave a boat load of power to the ISPs to regulate themselves, which obviously doesn't mean anything because the ISPs have free reign to throttle connections to make more money.

As we look at the internet today, we no longer have the protections of Net Neutrality as we know them today. We do have some, very minor restrictions, but as it stands, there are no laws preventing the financially biased internet that people are afraid of, other than the ISPs regulating themselves. The best thing we can do is wait for the discussion of Net Neutrality to return to the forefront of conversation and take an opportunity to bring it back to what it was. We have seen ISPs do sinister things to benefit themselves, and this is one of those things that the government can prevent. Yes, it can be considered prior restraint, but this is more of a gray area than anything else in terms of prior restraint vs. subsequent punishment, especially considering the fact that the ISPs were not exactly getting punished for their actions in most cases (there are a few examples, but most fly under the radar).

Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations (World Wide Web)

 The Diffusion of Innovations theory attempts to explain the development and adoption of different technological or ideological inventions, such as inventions of new music formats and mass production of various products or equality of the sexes and races. Most of these ideas and technologies are not adopted and disregarded entirely. As a result, they may never be attempted again. However, there are a few technologies that do succeed and have staying power, and one of the best examples of that is the World Wide Web. As many with a basic understanding of the internet know, the World Wide Web is where all of the websites are. As a result, everyone you talk to uses the World Wide Web in some capacity. This means it is one of the few technologies revolutionary enough to break passed the group of laggards, which will be discussed further in a bit.

The Diffusion of Innovations discusses five main groups of consumers: Pioneers, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and the Laggards. In the case of the World Wide Web, the pioneers would be scientists, hospitals and mathematicians. The early adopters would be tech geeks who were interested in getting a computer and this gave them more incentive to purchase one. As the Web began to gain more traction, more and more people became interested, and some regular people with a bit of money to throw around became the Early Majority. After some time passed, the technology that ran the Web became more affordable as it became more ingrained in our society with things like YouTube, Google, Amazon, and others gaining popularity in the world. This brought in more people who were probably very hesitant, but felt a need to create social media accounts for things like LinkedIn and Facebook to stay connected with their friends.

At this point, just about everyone you could run into at your local Starbucks used the internet in some capacity. Airplanes started offering free Wi-Fi, and most businesses in general have guest internet and a private network for members of staff. Streaming things like music, TV Shows and movies have now become the hit thing, and now just about everything that required various separate devices can be compacted into just one cell phone. While laggards may have the old tech and prefer that, in all likelihood, they use the Web and, more broadly, the internet, to keep in touch with family members and organize events. At this point, everyone that has access to internet uses the World Wide Web. It has become so ingrained into our society that everything would probably screech to a halt without it.

Personally, I can't imagine a life where I don't have access to all of my music on my phone and I'd have to buy CDs and records for it all. I would've gotten by, but I probably would have complained about it a lot since I have access to all of these things now. However, it is interesting to see the development of these technologies and ideas as well as how they are adopted (if at all).

Anti-war Opinions and Their Obscurity

 War is a fairly touchy subject. A lot of people don't like to talk about it for some reason. There seems to be a stigma around criticizing war efforts, seemingly because people fear that the government will punish them for it. This belief is not without historical merit. During the Civil War and World War I, anti-war opinions were frequently silenced in favor of keeping the public seemingly uninformed about the negatives of entering a war beyond just the bloodshed. War causes financial burden, loss of life, stress upon the country or countries caught up in the crossfire, and damages relations with the countries that are fighting each other and with countries that have conflicting interests.

My most realistic belief is this: media doesn't like to talk about war because they're usually guided by political or religious beliefs. America leveled an entire country to kill a man who did not have access to the weaponry they claimed to have. War, especially nowadays, is fueled by greed rather than defense. Another big piece of it may be this: Most countries now don't formally declare war. Formally declaring war causes more burden than just marching in and fighting. Also, without formally declaring war, there may be a media incentive to not cover it. However, it is crucial that the people be informed about what the government is doing, especially considering that the money from taxes is seemingly getting flushed down the toilet of foreign affairs for the sake of greed, rather than being put to good use to remove hidden political indoctrination from schools and maintaining infrastructure. War has little, if any, benefits for either side long term. It cripples both countries financially, it damages relations with those allied with the opposing country, and can cause countries to economically depend on more stable countries. At the end of the day, all war does is harm everyone involved. I don't understand why war doesn't make headlines. It just feels like an entire cover-up in an effort to protect the jobs of politicians at the expense of keeping the people informed. I wish we didn't have to seek out this information so much, because it genuinely shouldn't be that way. My best guess is that it doesn't seem like it would get enough clicks or views as war isn't as politically charged as an election, censorship, or anything like that.

Online Privacy (and a Lack of It)

 Were it not for censorship, online privacy would likely be the current issue regarding tech in question. Privacy is something that everyone values greatly, and we have seen frequent breaches in privacy by tech companies. When people talk about privacy, generally the belief is that it is a universal good and violations of said privacy are evil. Most of this is being committed by social media, and that will be discussed, but what is the significance of these violations of privacy?

The one video that resonated the most with me was the idea of an "online tattoo". This means that everything you post online is there forever. I really don't like the idea of everything I post online being permanent, no matter how benign. I kept thinking about this old adage: "Everything on the internet is forever." As I continued to watch the video, I began to ask how it affects my family and me. While I personally don't use a lot of social media, I feel that any path I take will almost certainly require it, which means I have to take these things into account. I resent the thought of not having control over what I post and, more importantly, whether or not it stays up there. The thing that bothered me the most about all of this is the following: Facebook places things in their Terms of Service that allow them to do deplorable things with our information on Facebook that we would never allow if they were placed right in front of us. However, people believe that the government should get involved in resolving this.

I don't really know exactly what the government can do to fix the problem. The best thing I can really think of is to redefine privacy-related laws to benefit the individual rather than the company. A big problem is that the government likely will not do that anyway because a lot of companies like this cozy up with the government so they can benefit. As a result, the burden begins to fall upon us.

We as individuals have to take it into our own hands to take control of our lives and maintain our privacy. The best thing we can do is to stop using these apps or, at the very least, protest it. We can't allow it to continue, and just because the government won't do anything about it does not mean that it will not be fixed ever. We can do something about it. I hope that people realize that eventually and we as a society decide to stop rolling over and accepting this lack of privacy.