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.

The Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court is the highest and most prestigious court in the United States. It has been such a successful model for how high courts should be formatted, that it has seen widespread use and implementation in other nations courts. The law has always been complicated, and it is the task of the Supreme Court to decide whether actions taken by government officials are supported in the nations guiding legal document, the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been behind some of the nation's most progressive movements at times, and a backer of some of its darkest. How did the Supreme Court become what it is today, and what new information came out from the reading?

Humble Beginnings

The Supreme Court was established in 1789, and their office was located at first in a dimly lit basement of the unfinished Capitol building. At first, there were only 6 justices, Congress would then spend the better part of a century debating the proper amount, finally settling on 9 in 1869, which has remained the same since. The first case heard was West v. Barnes,  a case between a farmer and the state. West, the farmer, tried to represent himself, failed to properly submit some paperwork and the case was decided against him. Despite the lack of flashiness, West v. Barnes plays an important role in establishing precedent for Judicial Review, the process where the Courts can review the actions of government officials. 

Judging the Hell out of You

Judicial Review is a crucial part of the Supreme Court, and its founding can be traced to a single case in 1805, Marbury v. Madison. In the case, the Supreme Court struck down a federal judicial law because it conflicted with the Constitution. It established the Supreme Court's role as an overseer against Government overstepping. The Supreme Court is responsible for civil rights, the separation of church and state, voting rights, and so many other wins for the rights of Americans. All of these have one thing in common: they couldn't've happened without Judicial Review. 

Reading Takeaways 

There were a couple things of note in the reading that I was unaware of before. Namely, I learned a lot more about the position of Chief Justice, and the role it has played throughout history. John Marshall was the Chief Justice responsible for judicial review, and often, changes in Chief Justice often meant changes in some of the beliefs or opinions of the Court. The Court was responsible at times for aiding slavers and racists, and at other times they were on the side of the people. I also learned that the Chief Justice presides over Presidential trials of impeachment. This fact is even more interesting where you consider William Howard Taft, who served as both President and Chief Justice at different periods in time. Although he never got to oversee an impeachment trial as Chief Justice, one could imagine the interesting position Taft would be in, overseeing a Presidential impeachment while also being a former president. 

My Top 5 Sources of News

 In our first assignment, we are asked to share our main sources of news information, but for most of us, it all comes from one place: the Internet. The internet is the medium in which we interact with most information on a daily basis, as a direct result of the internet's utility. Using the internet for communication, information gathering, and a medium to spread information are all completely fine, those actions are the direct purpose of the creation of the internet. It should be noted, however, that most, if not all of our sources of information come from digital mediums in the modern day.

My first news source, however, is one which was originally print - The Washington Post. Living in Southern Maryland, the District always has an overbearing affect on the local news outside of the Capitol. However, newspapers centered in the district will also cover other relevant local news, so I can get high-power reporting on issues local to my friends and family at home. I can also get relatively center-left political discussion, which I can balance out rhetoric by reading the same topics covered by conservative news outlets. I pay for the monthly subscription myself, and mostly read it through their website.

My main news source can be found in reddit.com. Information is sorted on the website fairly simply - based on the upvotes and downvotes of millions of users, relevant global and national news can be curated by the people, to determine which news is most important to the most people. At least in theory, that would be the case. In practice, news is sorted well by relevance, but political commentary and some news may be overinflated or suppressed based on the moderation of the community the post was made in. However, for the most part, I will learn about deaths of celebrities, major world events, and other national news on reddit before I hear about it anywhere else. The fact that anyone can post and any post can make the front page means new information and content is always being found or created, making it an ideal source for information.

Another news source I read is the New Yorker. They write long investigative pieces on various stories around the world, and what I consider to be one of the last bastions of good journalism in modern media. Their journalists are top tier, reporting on stories with over a decade of background information. Long-form reporting on larger scale topics and ideas, broadening my sense of the world and how it came to be the way it is, among other things. If I ever want to learn something new about the world, or try to get a handle on what I do know about it currently, the New Yorker is a good spot to hear solid reporting on the issues I care about. I also pay for a digital-only subscription to the New Yorker out of my own pocket. 

When it comes to campus news, I go to instagram. I can follow numerous official accounts of my favorite celebrities, companies, social and school organizations. I can get updates on how my friend's lives are going, but also receive important information about events and policies being going on on campus. For information and news regarding campus life, I turn to Instagram to fill that role

Finally, my last source of news comes from youtube. I subscribe to multiple accounts that both cover and react to various developments in the modern world, and many who attempt to explain causes and effects of these events, among other channels. When I am curious about how something works, I go to youtube to figure it out. When I want to figure out how the world is working, there is someone out there on youtube providing up to date, thoughtful commentary. It takes time to find and build a large group of quality content creators in your feed, but there is endless untapped potential for learning when it comes to what you can find on the platform.

While all of my sources I consume through a digital medium, these sources are not any less veritable. All of them are susceptible to posting fake news, so the most important thing to remember when consuming modern media, and especially digital media, is to verify sources before you let them change your opinion.