Final Presentation

 LINK

Final Post: Society and Technology

Technology is our salvation, if we can make it a more perfect union with society, rather than force ourselves to change to technology. The United States has made that mistake. We operate massive metal boxes daily at high speeds, while giving little to no thought about the person on the overgrown sidewalk who is trying to walk across 8 lanes. We have created a society through our development patterns which promotes isolation and unhealthy use of technology.

A suburban home is an island in a sea of islands, connected between each other through vast seas of asphalt. I use the word sea because that's the closest approximation to what it is, inhospitable to any organism besides those suited for it. We wrap ourselves in steel because it is the only protection available. We stay inside our air conditioned homes, and relegate ourselves to technology to fill the void in which social gathering once did.

You can see this shift in society through the attendance numbers of social groups and events like churches or town hall meetings. We have solved this problem of immobility by using technology to fill the gap. Why go over to a friend's house to watch a show when you could share your screen through FaceTime, or sit in a virtual-reality lounge to pass the time, especially when going to that friend means driving? When people used to go to churches, they'd stick around after the fact and enjoy some food and time with community, unknowingly forming deeper ties to their local community and building strong social bonds which fulfilled us. Now it's the Indy 500 as to who can screech out of the church parking lot the quickest so they can get back home to where the technology is.

We have, as a society, chosen to form ourselves to be with a closer union with technology, rather than allowing technology to form to us. We have changed our traditions, our environments, and our habits to better facilitate technology usage, and we are worse off for it. That is not to say technology is evil, rather our usage of it. Technology has facilitated instant global communication, scientific breakthroughs, and the elimination of many diseases. But as we have formed new technologies, those technologies formed us.

I woke up today to a weekly notification on my phone: My average daily screen time was down by 17%! I was pleased at this fact until I realized that it was reduced from 7 hours daily to 6. Without realizing it, I spent a 1/4 of my day, each day, the whole week, looking at my phone. Horrified, I went and asked my roommates, and they all had similar figures. I asked my parents, and they did too. I figured I was in some statistical bubble, so I looked up the averages for my age group. 7 hours, 22 minutes is the given figure by the American Psychological Association for the average daily screen time of a 14-18 year old.

I doubt better evidence exists of how much people have changed in response to technology than that figure. When my mom was a kid, the average daily screen time was however long your parents let you watch tv for after dinner. Now, looking at my younger cousin, who is 7, I see a child who is entirely dependent on the internet for entertainment. I shudder to think what her screen time figures look like. What effects does this have on society in the longer term? What does a society look like that has had a global communication device in their hands for as long as they were capable of holding it?

We are starting to see the effects in the United States. The most major symptom I see is a complete disregard for quality public spaces. My grandmother once said, "For a price of a cup of coffee in Paris you get a seat to the whole world for the day." She is referring to the attitude in European countries wherein public spaces are for the public - as in everyone is taken into consideration. For the price of a cup of coffee in America, you get a seat with a view of a massive parking lot, or if you're lucky, a 12 lane interstate.

These intentionally hostile spaces reflect the changing of culture in America as a result of technology. Why sit outside a coffee shop facing a parking lot when you could spill it on yourself while you're cruising down the interstate and cause a 42 car pile-up? These are the only choices given to us, so we choose the option which allows us to avoid the uncomfortable reality we now live in, so we solemnly pick up our Dunkin from the drive-thru and merge back on the highway.

War in the Age of Information (EC Blog)

For my second EOTO, I decided to delve into Citizen Journalism, or more specifically, Open Source Intelligence. Open Source intelligence is the novel practice of understanding and analyzing conflicts between nations through the social media they produce. The first example of this was the Arab Spring, where rebel movements oftentimes were broadcasted by the rebels themselves, using the medium as a platform to spread their ideas, first in Tunisia, then to numerous other Arabian countries. For the first time, a conflict was readily and immediately visible to those far flung from it.

More recently, in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, starting in 2014 social media had been weaponized by Russia, who spent the equivalent of 19 million dollars funding a staff of 600 writers to pour pro-Russian propaganda on the open forum. This continued right up until the recent restrictions and sanctions on Russian social media by Western companies and the Russian government. But prior to that restriction, Russians were free to post whatever they wanted to a global audience.

The propaganda machine the Russians created worked well to stifle dissent in its own numerous regions, but only energized those outside of it. In the lead up to the invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022, I myself began to notice this propaganda, on Twitter, TikTok, and elsewhere. Videos showing the lumbering Russian war machine beginning to mobilize towards Ukraine began to appear in earnest in January 2022, and by February it was hard to miss the videos of tanks on trains, or soldiers drudging through the wilderness, among the cat pictures and memes. 

The videos, despite their prevalence, did not energize those in the West as much as one may have imagined. Western media that sought to energize their people against Russian aggression were often the places that were targeted by the propagandists the most. Twitter posts of news articles condemning the actions of Russia were flooded with comments by Russian bots and propagandists, attempting to defend the state's actions.

I, being completely immersed and intrigued by the implications and effects of technology on modern conflicts, chose to present on Citizen Journalism to my classmates to hopefully allow them to gain greater insight into the world we are in today. After seeing the propaganda penetrate into my own social media, I wanted to turn the presentation into an opportunity to show hard evidence that Russia was going to attack Ukraine, using the subject of my presentation to do so. In doing so I did not intend to provide an in depth analysis of the topic, but rather a practical example of the capabilities of Citizen Journalism. 

Since the invasion and subsequent restriction of social media, pro-Russian sentiment online has for the most part quieted. The videos of Ukrainians being killed do not. As I sit here writing this, my phone notified me that Kiev is currently being bombed. Yesterday I read Ukrainian government officials use facial scanning technology to identify dead Russians and notify their parents. The future will be weird, but whenever history is made, the world will now be there to see it.   

TikTok Algorithm

 Modern machine learning is a process which everyone should understand and be fascinated by. It is essentially darwinism applied to computers. CGP Grey has a great video I recommend watching here on the topic. The same process described on the YouTube algorithm applies to TikTok, but this one has a much different job. Instead of having to decide what options to show a user to click, the algorithm has full control over what content is shown to the user. So it has to be good at it's job. I learned through the EOTO presentation about how the TikTok algorithm knows a lot more about the individual than what you may think. Your attention span, political beliefs, usage patterns, and a multitude of other factors are tracked through your usage.

This is worrisome, because if the algorithm knows all these things, then the people who own the algorithm, the Chinese government, also know all these things. As I write this in my dorm room, I can hear 2 of my roommates scrolling through their TikTok feeds in their rooms. TikTok is pervasive in the modern American teen's media diet. This means the algorithm is collecting and storing data on millions of Americans. If the Chinese government is smart enough and forward-looking enough, which based on the history of the Chinese, I believe they are, then they are likely working on ways to use this wealth of information at their disposal to their advantage. For now, their interests align with ours and it isn't a clear, present issue, but the implications are worrisome. 

Diffusion of Innovations

 The Diffusion of Innovations describes the process of adoption of a new technology, showing it to follow a bell curve. One such technology that followed the theory is the smartphone. The smartphone had multiple iterations, but we can see the clear beginning stages of the early adopters from as early as 1994  with the "Simon Personal Communicator" by IBM. (pictured below)

Early adopters started slowly, building momentum until around some point around 2008, where they became the early majority, with smartphones building in adoption rates continuously until smartphone adoption rates hit 50% in 2012. Most of the western world now owns a smartphone, and we are now in the process of leaving the late majority to the "Laagards", i.e. only the Amish and people very averse to them are left. So companies seek other markets in lesser developed countries, and push heavily for adoption in those regions to drive sales. I see no real downside to every human on the planet owning a device which connects them to a global communication network, allowing free discussion to the masses. Besides when those communication platforms are manipulated for profit or other motive, smartphones allow a window into the global consciousness. 

EOTO: Citizen Journalism

 Citizen journalism is a fairly simple idea which describes something we already do and have done for thousands of years: rely on word-of-mouth information. Now, for most of human history, this has been a terrible idea, because as a facet of our physical existence we cannot find and consume enough information to have a decent idea of what is going on around us at any given time. The internet has changed that. Smartphones, ones which in the modern day are all equipped with high definition cameras, enable information to pour onto an open forum endlessly and easily. 

So much information being uploaded makes it again impossible to see everything out there because of our own limitations, but therein lies the solution. We, as people, know some information is inherently more useful or interesting. Social media algorithms, while nowadays more convoluted with user-specific targeting, operate at their core on the Marketplace of Ideas. In general, posts starting off are only shown to a few people, but if those people engage with the post enough it will be shown to more people, and so forth. The more valuable a post is, i.e. how interesting or useful people find it to be, the more engaged they would be. In principle, the system operates well to disseminate information, and we are just now entering a period in time in world history where it is becoming useful.

Many events in recent world history have benefitted from the knowledge of citizen journalism. 9/11, the Arab Spring, and the current Russia-Ukraine conflicts come into mind when discussing the topic. The accounts of people on the ground can be useful, informative, and heartbreaking. People recording themselves becoming victims of war crimes, troop movements of enemy forces, and vital wartime information for civilians are being disseminated to the peoples of countries at a pace never seen before.

For that, I believe social media to be of a general good to society, but to our use of it when we are divided I detest. Citizen journalism is a bright spot in humanity, a means for the truth to be sought out in a world of disinformation. 

Privacy

 Privacy is a topic which comes up frequently in the modern discussion of social media and the digital age. We are in a time where we no longer are the main target for products online; we are the targets. Data collection and analyzation are a major industry now, raking in billions of dollars to pick apart every aspect of our digital lives. This collection of information on a massive scale is unprecedented in what it means for society as a whole.

In the recent movie Don't Look Up! which is available on Netflix, (Definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it yet!) Peter Isherwell, who is a mash-up between Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, and various tech billionaires, says to DiCaprio "Our algorithms can even predict how you’ll die with up to 96% accuracy. I looked you up after we first met. Your death was so unremarkable and boring... I can’t even remember what it said. Apart from one thing. You’re going to die alone." (Ouch!) We will soon reach a future where the data collected on us will be able to tell anyone with the money to buy it our most intimate secrets. Some say the phone knows us better than we know ourselves. If that is true, then what does that say about this rapid monetization of our usage habits?

Nothing good. Already it can be debated recent elections have been influenced by that fact. It would be naïve to think otherwise. With the billions of dollars spent on political campaigns, a scenario a-la House of Cards is definitely not out of the question, where the NSA's data-pool on American citizens could be utilized by an incumbent President to help sway the election in their favor. None of this is good news for democracy, and it is up to the people to fight for their own privacy, even if they can't see the direct effects of loss. We are screwed. 

EOTO: The Typewriter

The typewriter is a machine that today is antiquated, but at it's time was obviously revolutionary. In the same way that personal computers put what once filled an entire room onto the table, or now the palm of your hand, the typewriter put a printing press in the hands of anyone who could read. With it's invention in 1867 coinciding around the same period where education became mandatory, millions of people could now create high quality documents and paperwork.

The original 1873 Sholes and Glidden Typewriter

This revolutionized business, as instead of having to use slow, labor intensive printing presses or professional drafters, professional documents could be drafted by women with a formal education, who in turn received well paying jobs for their work. The typewriter changed the world quickly, and the typewriter changed along with it. In less than a year after the first production typewriter model was released, it was immediately improved by the work of Thomas Edison, who used his knowledge of electricity to invent the first electric typewriter. Subsequent models made improvements in usability, adding additional functions to make the process more streamlined.   

The typewriter revolutionized the print world, and it's effect can still be seen today. The QWERTY keyboard found on most English speaking country's computer keyboards today came from Christopher Latham Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter in 1867, had the QWERTY layout we are all familiar with. The typewriter brought improvements to business, the labor market, women's rights, and it's effects will continue to resonate throughout time.

Anti-War: Why we don't hear the other side

War is hell. We as a society know this, acknowledge that war is an ugly, messy affair. We know the effects war has on soldiers, terms such as "shell-shock", "combat fatigue", "soldier's heart" and "war neurosis" are all terms used to describe throughout time the brutal results of war on soldiers, not to mention regular people whose lives are destroyed because of it. 

But war makes money. After WWII, the United States was in a unique position, being one of the only belligerents in WWII who came out the other side better for it. Using this position, the United States asserted its authority now as "leader of the free world" Since then, the United States has engaged in numerous lesser conflicts for various reasons

Money, oil, ideas, threats, attacks, all pretexts for various wars over time. Throughout the cold war, the United States has continued to assert its authority and policed the world. As the U.S. is in such a position, for them to be not in conflict presents a significant security risk. The United States military is so strong in part because of their immense budget, but mainly because of the well trained, battle hardened troops the budget funds. 

The wars the United States has taken place in since WWII could almost be called training missions, to keep the troops well regimented for the main threat, the USSR, and now Russia/China. And it works. In 2018, the New York Times wrote about an engagement between around 500 Syrian soldiers, including trained Russian mercenaries and 40 U.S. soldiers in Syria. Reports listed around 200-300 Syrian/Russian deaths, with 0 injuries or deaths reported from the United States. Battle hardened and tested soldiers do better than those fresh out of basic training. 

Syrian troops receiving treatment at hospital after aforementioned engagement 

So with the immense wealth the defense industry has at it's disposal, and it's clear objective to have well trained troops, it makes sense that the defense industry will use some of that wealth to support pro-war sentiments, and attempt to quiet anti-war ones. It is up to us, the people, to recognize the situation, and take measures separate from what is most easily accessible, and attempt to gain insight into other perspectives to have a more well-rounded understanding of what goes on day to day.

EOTO Blog: The Mail

 Ever since the invention of writing, it naturally follows that people have been paid to transport documents from one place to another. Writing is meant to be spread, and to do that required logistics. Men, horses, roads to ride on, accurate directions, safe places to stop along journeys, and much else. To accommodate this, numerous governments in numerous places in the world, such as Mongolia, Persia, India, Rome, and a handful of other places developed postal systems for government and military post. 

For most of history, if you wanted to send a letter somewhere, you had to hire someone to deliver the letter, whether that be by horse, wagon, boat, or foot. This costed money. Couriers and cargo would often go missing or get lost, and there was often little recourse for those affected. So, when Enlightenment ideas came around, many nations when reconstructing created postal services accessible to common people.

Mail in the United States

The United States was one such country. The Crown had a postal network of its own in the colonies for a substantial period of time, even headed by none other than Benjamin Franklin at one point. So when the Founding Fathers set out to create there own Government, they decided a postal service was explicitly necessary, even going as far to establish it directly in the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, otherwise known as the Postal Clause. 

For much of early America's history, the postal service was the main way Congress could influence the public on what they should and shouldn't read. So naturally, it became a hotbed of first amendment issues. For example, Northern Abolitionists were sending pamphlets promoting the cause to the South, and Congress debated blocking their delivery, but ultimately decided against it. Congress continued to use the postal service as precedence for legislation, using postal roads to develop national routes, and affecting numerous other industries and areas. 

To put it simply, to have good connection to the outside world makes it easier to sell your stuff, and that makes the economy grow if everyone has that. Theres more examples than just post roads, but the postal service was and still is crucial to the Government's function. The postal service was also heavily linked to the press at the time, with the first Postmaster General Benjamin Franklin also being a major newspaper publisher at the same time he held office. The news was largely disseminated through the mail, and that led to a number of first amendment hangups. 

Technology

In 1840, Sir Rowland Hill invented the postage stamp system, which revolutionized the process for letters, making it simple and easy for any citizen to send a letter to another at minimal cost. The United States adopted the system in 1847, and the practice continues today. 

Postal services developed alongside technologies during the Industrial Revolution, including usage of rail lines, industrial practices in package sorting, air travel, and computer processing of mail for sorting. Private couriers still exist, but they largely service larger packages from delivery sites like Amazon and eBay, while each Government's postal service cooperates with others for the delivery of letters.

Eight Values of Free Expression

Speech Theories

In class and online, we have read about speech theories surrounding the first amendment, reasons why we should have open and free discourse. Some of the theories seem counterintuitive at first, but they make sense. I'll do a brief overview of some of the less relevant terms, and go more in depth with others.

Participation in Self Government

• The belief that politicians must have an open and equal platform for them to be able to broadcast their ideas from for the integrity of the democratic process comes from Alexander Meiklejohn. This belief makes common sense. Twitter's decision to ban former president Donald Trump seems to be in violation of this, but it occurred after Trump had clearly lost the election.

 Individual Self Fulfillment

• C. Edwin Baker came up with the idea that free speech allows individuals to express and find their own identity through self-expression. This tracks with the 1st amendment, that freedom of speech is a human right, a dignity for people to be engrained with from birth. This is definitely one of the most positive aspects of freedom of speech.

Check on Governmental Power

• I'm not sure how I feel about this one, check in with me in a couple of years. To put in short, if the press discovers abuses of power in office, then people will collectively vote them out of office. 

Promote Tolerance

• Tolerance of other people's beliefs and ideas is a founding principle of American democracy, innately expected of Americans. Without the ability to have a fair discussion, without hateful beliefs clouding judgement, democracy falters. I'll talk more on this later. 

Promote Innovation

• The ability to freely discuss new ideas and developments without fear of persecution allows collaborative innovation to flourish in free society, as ideas build off of one another. 

Protect Dissent

• A core belief enshrined in the 1st amendment. Everyone, even those who we disagree with, should be protected in their speech.

The Marketplace of Ideas

The term was first used in a Supreme Court case in 1919, Abrams v. United States by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes. Holmes used the term to describe the belief when ideas compete in an open forum, the truth comes out on top. This is supported in academic circles, where the peer review process submits academic works to an open forum of criticism to determine its integrity. The internet is a bad example of this practice, as online forums have a tendency to become separated based on political beliefs, so ideas are not subject to an open forum. Not only that, but in an open forum, people must be dedicated to real debate, where online most debate is done in bad faith, either trolling or ad hominem attacks rather than nuanced discussion. It becomes difficult to engage in good faith debate when one side is unwilling to change their view from the outset of the discussion. People need to be less afraid of their ideas being wrong, or more nuanced than they want to believe. Relativism sucks.

Stable Change

Stable Change is the belief that those in society with extreme or disturbing views should be allowed to express these views. The reasoning is nuanced. Firstly, the belief is, if we allow these people to "vent", they should become less angry and less likely to pursue more serious and harmful action. Secondly, it's a good idea to let the crazy people identify themselves as crazy, so you can know. Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't be punished for harmful speech, as defined in class. It's just that everyone, even the crazy people, have a right to say what they want to. And maybe that isn't such a bad thing.