Final Exam Post and Presentation

 Blog #11

Nathaniel Bryant

April 30, 2021

Final Exam Post: My Digital Footprint

__________________________________________________________________________________

An idea most seem to forget is that the internet is permanent, especially in terms of keeping and logging data about you from searches and social media posts in relation to a person's "digital image" or "footprint". When being searched or observed on the internet, what a person does on the internet leaves a mark or "footprint" that is left there and be used and viewed by all who have access to it. In analyzing what a "digital footprint" is, it is paramount to discuss one's relationship with media and technology and how they interact. 

From my perspective, I would say my digital footprint is very small, at least compared to most. The role of media in my life is very limited. If anyone was to look me up, there would not be much to find. My role in social media is very small as I only have Snapchat and Instagram. Even though these two social media companies are very vulnerable and have limited privacy, I do not use either of them frequently. I have not posted anything on Instagram in over 7 years and I do not use it often. I've often considered deleting it as well. In terms of Snapchat, I do not post anything on my "story" to be viewed by others and it is not my primary source of communication. Social media-wise, the most open information on me is on my LinkedIn profile. I have my email, college location, my major, my resume, and my past works and accomplishments. I have tried to avoid platforms like Twitter and especially Facebook, which near infamous for its egregious infringements on user privacy. 

Despite not using social media much, there are other ways to be vulnerable and open enough online to leave a digital footprint. Another main concern involving how a user is portrayed or seen online is through a person watches their privacy online. Online user privacy, like Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook said, is no longer a "social norm". In today's online environment, the most dangerous information is not something you post openly, but it is what you don't post. 

Privacy is something violated constantly and is the "technological gold" of companies to use for profit by monetizing users' data for algorithms and ads. In regards to Mark Zuckerberg, and Facebook, which are a common example of how digital footprints can be more centralized on personal and private data. Rather than a bad photo of you in college with a bad tattoo resurfacing, it would be your credit card information, personal messages, the way you message people, buying patterns, and personal proclivities. This goes outside Facebook and is prevalent in many companies, and is how most make their profit. With this new refocus on how data is collected, it is important to watch where you stick your "digital foot" and to be able to know how to handle and combat these invasive methods.

Google Fined $5 Billion for Incognito Mode Tracking

In regards to my privacy, I have moved off of most major big tech companies or platforms where my
data is vulnerable. I have moved off of sites like Google, who even take information on incognito mode, taking private information and use it for monetization as well as shifting information accessibility. Google CEO, Sundar Pichai said in a court hearing that search engine information is algorithm-driven. The article on Observer by Sissi Cao explains it as "the fundamental reason for its biases is its artificial intelligence-powered search result customization". Because of this search result "customization", users are getting different feeds of information so they will always have different perspectives on certain views which can be helpful for some topics but more polarizing for others.

Observer.com | Result Customization Hearing

Staying off most major companies' sites is a great way to get away from most privacy infringing platforms. In regard to my own digital footprint, I did notice there were some things I needed to change in my own "online presence". I noticed I need to change is getting a VPN for my laptop.

As technology and media become advanced and more integrated with our daily lives, there is some debate on whether it brings more positives or negatives. 

With media becoming more advanced it makes it easier to communicate with others, stay on top of new developments with peers and family, and have sources better catered to users' needs. In today's society, whether most people like to admit it or not, media is nearly essential to communicate with others regardless of whether they like it or not. If it is not for personal or peer-related purposes, then it is work-related. Accessibility is key in media use and now people are accessible from many media platforms. If you wanted to make a business social media account to make yourself stand out more, you boost our image and make yourself visible to a wider audience, of those who might be interested in working with you. Even beyond usage for posting, data collection is favored by many who want a more accessible and user-centered platform. Comfort is a driving factor for tech company data tracking and is beneficial for both parties, the user and technology.

 

The darker side of technology and the role it plays in our lives is not just tech companies taking our data and how it affects us but also how users, as individuals are affected. Deciding whether to stay on or off of social media adds tension to the idea of the debate between Accessibility and Privacy. While some might rather have their information private, they are more likely to feel left out on interacting with others. In the position of a kid in school, being one of the only kids without Snapchat or Instagram could make a person feel lonely, missing out on everything that makes social media a media-wise inside joke and can add pressure onto a kid. Even beyond kids and adults, some might miss out on keeping up with friends who they can no longer reach and lose people over time. These problems create feelings of isolation and sometimes depression out of a lack of connection with others.

In evaluating how I interact with media as well as the impact on others, it is easier to come to a conclusive answer on what the balance would be between having media play a role in your life. Media is an important part of society and should be used by all that want to reap its benefits. At the same, being cautious and knowing what is at stake or knowing how to protect your data is equally as important in order to have a good relationship with media in our daily lives.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Sources

- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy

- https://observer.com/2018/12/google-search-algorithm-bias-duckduckgo-ceo/

EOTO Presentation Reflection 2

 Blog #11

Nathaniel Bryant

April 28th, 2021

EOTO Presentation 2: Confirmation Bias

___________________________________________________________________________________

Group 3 did a post about 5 Theories including Illusory Truth Effect, Confirmation Bias, Gatekeeping, Agenda Setting, Overton Window, and Spiral of Silence. Of these 5, I chose to evaluate Confirmation Bias and its impact on us and our society. 

Confirmation Bias is an the concept that we, as people, will look for information that will confirm what we already believe about about people, a topic, or an idea. Confirmation Bias has existed for many years and is something that goes hand and with information, disinformation, and misinformation. 

The impact of Confirmation Bias affects just all individuals. This concept reaches all age groups, race groups, and mindsets. Confirmation Bias works everyday through all people who feel the need to have their beliefs proved to themselves. Wanting to check the facts to prove if you are right is a common and rational thing to do and is important for holding beliefs. Confirmation Bias comes in where it becomes a toxic need, for example, citing a hate crime by a particular race or group as a basis of justified hate towards the race or group. This type of bias is extremely dangerous and radicalizes people while making them feel justified. This impact is mostly detrimental is just about every scenario because of how negatively it affects people. This can span from white to black, gay to straight, and old to young. With increased polarization it becomes harder to rationalize and reason with people, driving up tension with others.

EOTO Terms & Concepts

 Post # 10

Nathaniel Bryant

April 23, 2021

EOTO Terms & Concepts: Echo Chamber 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

In the "Mediasphere", there exists numerous concepts and topics that are seen in today's media whether in a public platform, journalism, activism, and influencing. Among these lies the concept of an "Echo Chamber". 

What is an “Echo Chamber”?

In daily life, it is common to be surrounded by people of all types perspectives and viewpoints that challenge your own as well as balance you to think about the mindsets of others. This opens up the possibility for you to develop more rational approaches to ideas and scenarios with others. In an "Echo Chamber", this idea is completely thrown out the window and ignored.

An Echo Chamber is a group or environment where particular ideas, viewpoints, and proclivities are reinforced through constant and closed off communication within a closed space of influence or a place without space for dissent. This closed off environment becomes a "chamber" where these similar ideas are repeated so often it appears as an "Echo" to anyone that might come in contact with this environment. 

Echo Chambers have some good and bad elements, that depend on the size of the group, radicality of ideas or people, and platform. For someone who wants to learn about a particular scholarly topic and got in contact with a collection of professors in a blog who all are informed on "said" topic would be a great environment for learning and meeting with individuals who can share great information in a constructive way. While this can be good, Echo Chambers tend to have more negatives on society.

Echo Chambers can be a place for individuals that rather ruins relationships with people and separates them for their isolation of thought. Echo Chambers are more likely to create polarization and push groups to the extreme. Whether you are someone who is not particularly informed on a topic, or someone who is informated and eager to share your ideas but have no one as radical as you, entering an Echo Chamber will equally polarize you. The issues where this is polarization has the most damage on our society is in issues that are social or political. The political and social divide between people continues to grow and rather than being able to communicate with others effectively, Echo Chambers poison whatever opportunity there is for rational communication.  

For example, say you wanted to learn more about abortion and you don't know much about either side as you scroll through twitter. You see a convincing post that is a pro-choice centered and decide to investigate. Though you might already be pro-choice, the environment appears to be more convincing that others. An interactive space where you can meet and share ideas is far more convenient than reading articles and watching deep reports and allows the you get more involved in being pro-choice, not just for the political knowledge, but for the people you have interacted with. As you learn you notice there are a myraid of people talking about the same idea over and over that you don't know about such as "late term abortion", and through being already connected with the "chamber" you feel somewhat obliged to agree and join them. This process continues as groups on either side continue to spiral farther from each other. Echo Chambers like this push the people in the center who can communicate and rationally listen to the far sides of the social or political spectrum. This divisiveness creates a wall between people based on the prejudices and opinions formed from these echo chambers. These environments are far more detrimental to society than helpful.

The impact echo chambers have on people have no limit to who they can influence. To limit the range of influence on Echo Chambers would mean there would be no groups in general for the many segments of people to meet up with. Whether based on economic status, gender, sexuality, there is a group of peoplwith similar thinking patterns that are closed off. 

Personall, I have not had man experiences being in an echo chamber. Not only do I not engage in social media often, I have been mostly an outsider in my closest friend groups in terms of opinions and values. As for my family they do not engage in social media as frequently as before which leaves them out of most echo chambers. 

The impact echo chambers has on this generation is the most detrimental. There are more people on social media than ever before and they have more influence of outside sources onto him. The lack of communication combined with the fact people are far more politically divided now makes communication between peoples and groups with dissenting opinions harder adding more stress. Echo chambers in short, are a major spot for polarization, breaking ties, and radicalization.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Works Cited and Sources:

https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/digital-media-literacy/what-is-an-echo-chamber/1/

https://advertising.utexas.edu/news/what-social-media-echo-chamber

https://simplicable.com/en/echo-chamber

Diffusion of Innovations on Current Media

Blog # 9 

Nathaniel Bryant 

April 19, 2021

Diffusion of Innovations: Facebook

___________________________________________________________________________________

Most forms of innovation, either technological or idea-based, can be applied to the idea of "Diffusion of Innovations Theory", created by Everett Rogers. This theory essentially shows the change of influence, at a fixed rate, on how or why an idea or technological innovation might spread. 

Diffusion of Innovations Theory Graph

A great example of an aged technological innovation that has had to age to be evaluated is Facebook. Facebook has been around since 2004 and has been through various phases through its prevalence and advancements. 

Around the time Facebook came out, they had nearly no competitors except for MySpace. MySpace came out a year earlier and was seen originally as the main powerhouse in social media platforms until Facebook came in. They were out ahead and were getting investors and making large-scale investments and were making more moves to become a bigger platform.

 

So what had changed?

When Facebook originally came out it was originally started as a platform for young college students and which came off as a trendy and spiked interest in the development of Facebook since its early years. As it grew tremendously, investors started to look into the company. One thing Facebook did that  MySpace did not do that determined the future of who leads the social media industry.

As MySpace was purchased by news corp, they began to work on the future of the platform by planning ahead too far and trying to gauge their company on basically gambling on how the company would go. By doing this, they continued to fall short when compared to Facebook's plan. Facebook actually let the marketplace move and advance on its own, and would determine the company from there. In doing this, Facebook was better at catering to its users and was able to better build the company in comparison to MySpace, which was losing out based on its faulty planning,

As it continued to grow past the early adopters who were younger college students, it eventually started to push into the early majority as Facebook gained 12 million users by 2006. Facebook was starting to come up and become popular as it spread to more users of different ages. Now families were getting on to share posts and pictures with families. Soon they gained a news feed and were moving forward as they become a more accessible platform with more tools and features to keep users engaged. Even adding things like a like button in 2009 was enough to keep users engaged. 

As time went on, Facebook started to capture its late majority party. This group consisted of older users and began to become a platform for more older families and business. Facebook was at its peak here as it did have some new young and older users as well as a more mature group of users who had been on the platform for a while. It was one of the biggest platforms in the social media industry having over 1 billion frequent users in 2012. Now Instagram had just came out a year earlier and Snaphcat would come shortly after but they were far smaller than Facebook was.

The last group of laggards, or people who did not use the platform at all, had numerous reasons for their late or absent arrival. In today's society, Facebook is considered to be older and not as prevalent when compared to newer platforms. Most young people who get Facebook in this group are obligated to or almost never use it. Certain classes require one but so do other devices like the Oculus VR. There are many inactive users on Facebook in this group. The other half who did join or quit were deterred for privacy concerns. Facebook is infamous for their privacy infringements and data breaches. 

The main downsides of Facebook are their constant and invasive data tracking tendencies. Whether it was taking private data, losing 530 million users' data in a breach and refusing to notify them, tracking users even after they log out, and the main issue that they continue to do these things despite being caught and manage to get away with it. Facebook is not the only problem because they control many other platforms such as Instagram. Recently they imposed some of the same data tracking for ads to Instagram in their terms of service. This is an example of how big companies can control the social media market.This is one of the main reasons I avoid Facebook as well as Instagram.

Now while I still have Instagram I try to not use it as much as there are numerous benefits to Facebook and their platforms. There is an opportunity for better communication, keeping up with peers and family, and for business. Still, what Facebook has can be found in alternative platforms with less risk. 

The cost benefit analysis of Facebook compared to a new company would be fighting on different aspects rather then the same. Originally, it is common to think the popularity of a social media platform is based off popularity. Facebook makes a majority of its profit from advertisements and would have to rely on its ownership of smaller platforms as well as the selling of private data. The newer technology would not only have to have popularity but also a form of algorithm to stay in the data selling game to compete with Facebook.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/?sh=9bc1db4147e9

- https://www.npr.org/2021/04/09/986005820/after-data-breach-exposes-530-million-facebook-says-it-will-not-notify-users

- https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/timeline-facebook-s-privacy-issues-its-responses-n859651

Anti-War and the Media Narrative

Blog # 7
Nathaniel Bryant
April 18, 2021

The Disconnect between Anti-War voices and the Media Narrative

____________________________________________________________________

In our current political climate, there seems to be a lack of emphasis or any talk at all on the topic of US war involvement, especially from an anti-war perspective. At the most, most topics are brought up to bash political figures rather than address the issues at hand. 

The American Conservative

Antiwar.com logo

This issue with stories related to US war involvement and our military actions not being frequently reported in the mainstream news has to deal with the narrative that is painted by these media outlets. Most reports like the ones found on The American Conservative and Antiwar.com, are almost impossible to find and almost seem unreal when compared to the indifference by the mainstream media to the stakes of these issues. Another reason why sites and stories like these are left out is that in terms of mainstream media, a majority tend to favor a more left-leaning side than a right-leaning. These include sources like CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, NPR, and The Washington Post, while the most mainstream right-leaning source is Fox News. Though there is freedom of speech, it is not entirely out of the question that the government gets involved in the production of the news to fit a specific narrative. This narrative involves holding a grasp and control on what news is carried by other sources to frame a view on topics bringing a sense of relevancy and attention to issues that fit the manipulative purpose for the viewer to be influenced in a particular and set direction. Addressing real issues within US militaristic actions would bring people to focus on the government in a way that is undesired by those in power.

The search for real antiwar voices is rougher than most in the sense that it takes someone who is willing to be critical and focused on topics most others would be deterred from. Seeking obscure sites for info seems creepy and untrustworthy at first, but brings new clarity and focus to issues by those who are familiar with the state of how things are run.

 ____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/

https://www.antiwar.com/

EOTO Presentation Evaluations

Post #6

April 14, 2021

Nathaniel Bryant

EOTO Presentation Evaluation: Drones

_____________________________________________________________________

In the EOTO presentations, numerous types of technological devices and advancements were listed throughout various groups. Out of these, one technological advancement in particular stood out. In Group 1's presentation, Morgan Schragger did a presentation of the history and development of drones. 

The idea of drones, were based on an entirely different set of standards. Early in time, any floating device that moved independently from human control was considered a "drone". They later got their names because they don't increase or decrease, they just "drone on". The early example of a "drone" was a prototype air ballon device that were invented in 1782, by the Montgolfier Brothers.

Overtime, drones continued to advance and develop to new lengths By 1862, the first flying machine was patented to drop bombs, surveillance, and combat missions. Drones had begun to expand to militaristic purposes. 

Drones had become device that were able to benefit many things to the world. Along with this came many negative aspects that came with these advancements. They fly too close to commercial aircraft presenting dangers in air for other aircraft. Another negative aspect of drones are also extremely expensive to manufacture for people and for the government. Drones becoming more advanced means they are more advanced for warfare.

Though drones now have become more technological, there are still benefits to them. Drones have become accessible to the public and used for numerous things. They can be used to deliver items, personal use, filming and photgraphy for projects. Despite their positive and negative advancements, drones have changed many things in our current world.

Technology Analysis: Facebook

Blog #6
April 14th, 2021
Nathaniel Bryant

Facebook: Timeline, Pros, and Cons

_____________________________________________________________________

Whether you use it or not, Facebook is a well-known platform for numerous activities as a social networking website as well as a social media platform. Posts, pictures, videos, and news are only a few of the numerous sites listed here. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO, and co-founder of Facebook had created his platform in 2004 with some help as well as some obstruction.

 The History of Facebook

The upbringing and arrival of Facebook began when Mark worked with Divya Narendra, and the Winklevoss brothers: Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss to discuss a social media platform with Zuckerberg called Harvard Connection in 2003. Unfortunately, Zuckerberg quit and hid on his own to start a prototype called “Thefacebook” that same year. He then sought to employ the help of his new friends Andrew McCollum and Eduardo Saverin for the project. As the platform developed and launched in 2004, it began to grow rapidly already achieving 12 million users by 2006 and open its News Feed section. Now you could easily access news through the platform, giving more incentive to stay on the site. In 2007, Facebook opened its Marketplace, people could post to sell goods and services. Also in 2007, Facebook finally went mobile and began to offer its services to handheld devices all around. 

_____________________________________________________________________

Timeline

• 2003 - The idea of Facebook originally started when Mark Zuckerberg first worked with Divya Narendra, and the Winklevoss brothers: Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, on a project that was similar to Facebook called Harvard Connection
• 2004, February 4th - The first version, called the “Thefacebook” is invented 
• 2004 - Harvard Connection changes to ConnectU and sues Facebook (for stealing idea)
• 2006 - 12 million users
• 2007 - Facebook launches Beacon*
• 2008 - A settlement is decided on the matter involving Facebook and ConnectU
• 2009, February - The like button is created 
• 2012 - Facebook reaches 1 billion active and frequent users 
• 2012- Facebook becomes Public
• 2017 - Facebook Spaces is created

_____________________________________________________________________

As many more benefits appear, a bump in the road occurred. In 2007, Facebook also launched Beacon and ad system that presented security and privacy concerns with its intrusive data tracking and monitoring. In 2008 with a settlement with ConnectU resulting in Narendra, and the Winklevoss brothers receiving $1.2 million dollars in shares.

Facebook continued to expand and grow through the years with only a few bumps in the road. Even smaller updates continue to have a big impact on the platform as the like button is created in 2009. Also in 2009, Facebook shuts down Beacon as it proved to because of too much controversy and be a threat to personal privacy, even tracking even after users were logged off Facebook. Still, Facebook would grow and reach even 1 billion active users on their site. They also became public that year, as they dealt with numerous shareholders and smaller company issues. A new feature to Facebook that is more technological is Facebook Spaces. In 2017 Facebook Spaces was created as a (Virtual Reality) VR app for people to meet up online and converse. As the history of Facebook was a timeline of struggles and triumphs, it has more to it beyond its conception and development to its issues and benefits that are tied with the company.

Pros and Cons

Facebook was a revolutionary and important part of social media and helped change the way people would interact for years to come. Though Facebook may not be that prevalent in this current generation, it provided numerous features and techniques that laid the groundwork for other companies. 

With Facebook, you can communicate with others, share a funny or serious video with friends, a family photo with relatives, and reach out online to other people you would never approach. This platform is easy, accessible, informative for its news section, and strengthens social skills. Facebook also is beneficial for social networking and jobs. The site allows the user to create a profile that can be used for networking for job positions or to get your name out on the public platform. 

While Facebook has numerous benefits, it has by far some of the worst problems that set it far from many other platforms. Facebook has been known to have numerous and egregious infringements and violations of user privacy on NBC news, they give a timeline of all of Facebook's privacy violations. The main issues on this timeline were not that they were doing it, but that they got caught. From tracking every piece of information in messages, searches, and personal data, they have collected all this for ads and creating algorithms for their users. Even now, they just paid a record $5 billion in a fine to settle some privacy “concerns” for taking private data of 87 million users on Facebook (BBC).

_____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/history-of-facebook/

https://www.infoworld.com/article/2642560/connectu-suit-against-facebook-continues.html

https://www.officetimeline.com/blog/facebook-history-timeline

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/02/business/facebook-history-timeline/index.html

https://www.cnet.com/news/three-reasons-facebook-has-to-go-public/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/timeline-facebook-s-privacy-issues-its-responses-n859651

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49099364

The Development and Dangers of AI

Post #5

April 5, 2021

Nathaniel Bryant

Analysis: "In the Age of AI" (full film) by FRONTLINE

____________________________________________________________________

The movie "In the Age of AI" (full film) by FRONTLINE, discussed and analyzes A.I. and its impact on our culture, privacy, and our future. AI or Artificial Intelligence is developing at rapid paces and continues to become integrated into different and new jobs as well as aspects in our personal everyday life. Now while this can provide major improvements to human life, there is a darker side that accompanies the advancement of AI.

Some things that spurred up concern and fear for the future spanned from problems in current industries, online and personal privacy, national security, and who will have control of it the technology.

Privacy is a big part of how we are monitored, for good and bad. The benefits of data beyond privacy can benefit companies in the sense that these AI's collect data in the direct purpose to serve the user to the fullest extent. They take pieces of information to create an algorithm for helping users to find what they need from advertising, news, and communication.

Source: "Surveillance Capitalism" (1:09:09)

A more negative side would be the process of how these corporations get our data and how it can be used to control us. Social Media is an example of technology that is used to collect our data for use to monitor us for algorithms and data tracking. An example is "Surveillance Capitalism" (1:09:09), which is set to focus on monitor private human thinking to predict what people are doing and what can be done to take advantage of them. Alastair Mactaggart was another guest in the movie who got involved because he asked a question about privacy and Google after seeing it in the news. The answer he received was "You would be horrified if you knew about how much we knew about you" (1:10:54). These companies can and will take note of who you text, how you text, and when you text, as well as what you look at, what makes you happy, and what makes you sad. They take your searches and all of your deepest and most private information to create an algorithm for you. Now while this seems like a helpful tool, it opens up the door of control. These companies would treat the human populous like guinea pigs and use them to test their methods. All of their tracking, ad pushing, and feed manipulation are there to control the masses. Simply put, they study you to fabricate how you will act now and in the future for their gain while people blindly accept it under the guise of easier living and accessibility. In the end, the main shifting of data is to also benefit and improve the AI. 

In terms of national security, these companies work to use AI to manipulate the masses for their benefit to control them. Facebook was given money to manipulate millions of users or the 2016 presidential election as well as the Brexit referendum. This showed that anyone who has enough funds can do as they want to push these companies to manipulate their users for their gain. Its not just the problem that people with enough money can do it, but that these companies can already do this with ease.

In terms of online security, Alastair Mactaggart, got around 600,000 signatures to go and propose his idea to the government to let allow the people to have a say in whether their data can be sold or not. It passed unanimously and it to pass. Now people can see what has been tracked and can stop sites from doing it as well. Unlike most companies, Mark Smith, the president of Mircosoft came out in support of this as well.

When examing who will have control as well as where most of the fear can be seen in China as an example. China is rapidly catching up to America in terms of AI and integrating it into their lives. Xi Jinping, the president said that they would catch up with the US in foreign intelligence in 2025 and lead the world by 2030.

Source: AI Scan Identification; (17:17)

China leads the world in E-commerce and Drone delivery, and a cashless society where the currency is facial recognition. One of the scariest things the AI can do is take all your data and use it to make an algorithm for how you think and determine how your loan should be (15:18). It accesses 5000 personal features and creates the loan. The government can identity, track, and recognize you in 0.01 second. If it cannot describe you it can identify what you are wearing, how you look, and how old you are (17:17). How you walk, move, stand, and dress is all taken into consideration. China essentially a surveillance state. They can predict who were be most likely a terrorist and force people, mostly Muslim, into re-education camps. Torture and deaths happen in the camps frequently. These Muslims who are persecuted and live here are called "Wiggers".

AI has numerous benefits and cons, but ultimately it is advancing at a rapid rate and will exceed beyond much of our understanding. There are many good things AI provides for us to make every aspect of life easier. In this conquest for safety, accessibility, and technological advancement comes the darker side of AI. AI is a great tool but only becomes stronger through collecting personal and private data. The issue comes down to how much are we willing to sacrifice for AI and what can be done to keep privacy without slowing the US down to fall behind China. AI, whether we like it or not, is the future of technology.

_____________________________________________________________________

Source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dZ_lvDgevk

Freedoms and Boundaries of the First Amendment

Post # 4

Nathaniel Bryant
April 3, 2021

The First Amendment: What Does It Mean And How Does It Apply?

____________________________________________________________________

Through the analysis of the First Amendment and its use in an American context, numerous freedoms and expressions can be found that are key in examining scenarios and events that challenge these principles. In the First Amendment, 6 clauses, or freedoms are present. These are freedom from religion, of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. The First Amendment condones free speech and expressive action. While free speech speaks for itself, "expressive action" is the type of action promoted and protected under the First Amendment like a march or sit-in. What is not condoned under the First Amendment are non-expressive actions like burning a car, smashing buildings, and looting. While these parameters for what is and is not condoned apply to individuals, some might ask what that means for private corporations. 

Source: Terms and Concepts; 3:48

To some, a corporation violating your First Amendment rights would appear to be a punishable offense in a legal sense, but that is not entirely true. To examine why this is, it would need to note the role of the "State Action Doctrine" in this matter. The source "Terms and Concepts" by Dean Smith, states "that without government involvement, no constitutional claim can be made because only the government can violate your rights; thus, the first amendment doesn’t reach private actors".  

Concerning the State Action Doctrine, the government cannot interfere or do anything because only the government can violate your rights in this context leaving most private companies to do as they please. If you were posting or saying things that went against the company or group that you are employed by and they told you to stop or they would fire you, they could not be at fault.

Source: The Denver Post

An example of this can be found in the article "Majority of Western Colorado University faculty want president fired for comparing Jan. 6 riot to BLM protests". Here, the president of Western Colorado University, Greg Salsbury, nearly lost his job for equating the Jan. 6th riots with BLM rioters. He pointed out BLM's "rioting, burning, looting, and violence have emerged from protests across our country – resulting in seemingly endless confrontations, destruction of entire cities, properties, serious injuries, the public’s overall sense of security, and deaths," (Hernandez, Elizabeth. “Majority of Western Colorado University Faculty Want President Fired for Comparing Jan. 6 Riot to BLM Protests.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 31 Mar. 2021). 

After his statement was made, his faculty organized together in opposition to the president of the university. They organized a vote and despite the president not losing his job, he stated that he would try to better communicate with his faculty and do better. Despite him being the president, the faculty's vote challenging his position, the government would not be able to interfere even if he had lost his job because it is separate from the government.

In contrast, if someone feels censored online then his issue would more depend on the site they were censored on and what it was for. If the censorship was for threats or for content that is not safe for that site's terms, then the person cannot do much. The issue would be more if the site fitted into the area of "public accommodation".  If the site or platform is meant to be a free platform for all voices that is representative of all masses, then censorship would need to be closely examined. If a platform is specifically catered to one side and for a particular purpose then opposing it would be a different issue. But as a public online platform, the platform represents speech as it would in a physical platform. The issue comes in censorship comes when they are censored in these sites where it is considered public but is filtered with a specific narrative or ideology in mind. The main issue comes in why you are censored. If you are criticizing the government or political matters, and the platform silences you on a false charge then censorship is an issue. These sites have terms and conditions they must abide by as ground rules for the platform. Then the individuals enact their speech and expression in relation to these terms and conditions to express their voice. If you speak out while violating their rules, then you are justified in censorship like on Twitter or Facebook. If the site owner or moderator gets it wrong then it is able to be disputed in court based on certain platforms like YouTube. When people are censored, more for their content and less because they violate the rules does the government has a place to come in. These platforms, if they are public, are held to a certain standard that makes it an equal plane field for different ideas. 

When these platforms become private platforms open to the public, then the answer is to shift to another platform to put out ideas. The issue here is when the sites you are censored on have a monopoly, leaving no other open public sources to go on. This scenario is where most who have an issue being censored lie. 

____________________________________________________________________

Sources

Source: The Fourteenth Amendment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qnMm6_xG50

Source: Terms and Concepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0c0beUaNhI&t=6s

____________________________________________________________________

Work Cited

Hernandez, Elizabeth. “Majority of Western Colorado University Faculty Want President Fired for Comparing Jan. 6 Riot to BLM Protests.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 31 Mar. 2021, www.denverpost.com/2021/03/29/western-colorado-university-president-salsbury-blm-riot-protests-controversy/.

Speech Theories: Eight Values of Free Expression

Post # 3

Nathaniel Bryant
March 31, 2021

Speech Theories: 

Eight Values of Free Expression

____________________________________________________________________

Speech Theories: Eight Values of Free Expression

 

Free Expression is a factor of our society that has been a staple of our country but has become contested and challenged frequently over the years. For determining a true meaning in free expression comes 8 theories that were presented for this evaluation. These include:

1.      Marketplace of Ideas (aka Discovery of Truth)

2.      Participation in Self-Government

3.      Stable Change (aka Safety Valve)

4.      Individual Self-Fulfillment (aka Self-Actualization

5.      Check on Governmental Power (aka Watchdog Role)

6.      Promote Tolerance

7.      Promote Innovation

8.      Protect Dissent

Among these eight theories, the two that stand out are “Marketplace of Ideas” and “Promote Tolerance”. Particularly, the importance of these two theories on their own is important but so is their importance in relation to each other. The theory of a “Marketplace of Ideas”, is mostly consisted of the idea that in the battle for information that fact and fallacy should be allowed to clash for the outcome that the truth would be found in the end. And through this clash and debate, the truth becomes more refined and strengthened as a result of the challenge. The other theory mentioned in importance is “Promote Tolerance”. This theory is centered around the idea that speech that we may find offensive or hateful should be protected for the purpose of learning to learn how to tolerate people and opinions that challenge our own. This in turn benefits not only people in their own individual lives but also in societies to make them more tolerant. From what we can learn from confronting our own proclivities with speech differs so much help illustrate ideal behavior by seeing the process of the clash.

How these two theories collide with each other is what makes them so important. Though the idea of the “Marketplace of Ideas” theory comes with a small flaw, it hurts this idea and the credibility of it. While in theory, this idea is great, it suffers greatly when you consider how the clash between fact and fallacy cannot be heavily tainted when the process is interfered with. Most times it is easier to taint and “poison the well” before you drink from it. Instead of letting the stories collide and clash, censorship has become the new piece in the game. Censorship taints and rips apart the “grapple” for truth.

The most important theory, personally, would be “Marketplace of Ideas”. This idea of truth and falsehood going against each other has been a battle I have dealt with firsthand. Before I had a chance to get into politics or understand social stereotypes, I was alienated for not fitting into the narrative of what I was supposed to be. From this, I looked for things to cling to for identity and that would make me “fit” into what I was “supposed” to be. After that entire process of struggling, I eventually grew tired of it and decided to do research of my own. I changed not just in what I knew, but how I thought. When I was criticized for my identity, I simply started asking people questions and began to fight back against the lies that I was forced to believe. Being able to have the facts to finally bring something to the table was an experience that helped shape who I am and has influenced other aspects of my life. Still today I see this theory in action with the people I interact with to exchange ideas, not for the sake of being right, but helping people understand the truth and in turn, receiving it from others.

An example in news today pertains to a conservative political commentator, Steven Crowder, and his recent strike on YouTube, as well as his ban from the partner program, taking his ability to partner with companies for ads, rendering his channel permanently demonetized. The main issue here was how this censorship wet entirely against the “Marketplace of Ideas” and “Promote Tolerance” theory. YouTube has cracked down on conservatives and Steven Crowder in particular on numerous occasions and in this case was an illegitimate attack on him and these theories. Crowder’s video was suspended for challenging “the legitimacy of the vote in Nevada” (Hollister, Sean. “YouTube Has Removed Steven Crowder from Its Partner Program Indefinitely.” The Verge, The Verge, 30 Mar. 2021). This statement is entirely false. In order to be banned for “challenging the legitimacy of the election”, you must mention Donald Trump and a specific matter in the election at once. Crowder had people investigate voter addresses in Nevada. Crowder neither talked about the election or Trump as he said he could not, based on his lack of evidence. In most channels, you would just receive a strike, edit or take the video down, and not be allowed to upload or stream for a week. Instead, they took him off the partner program, which is odd and extreme.

Source: Article from Media Matters

Without this program, YouTubers cannot run ads or receive revenue for your channel. This was done, not a punishment for “violating” YouTube’s guidelines, but to deter Crowder from posting entirely. Rather than letting the “truth” come out, it has become easier to taint the source before It comes out. According to Media Matters, “Crowder has already stated his intention to evade the suspension (Campbell, Written by Jason. “After Being Suspended from YouTube, Steven Crowder Announces His Plan to Evade It via His Other YouTube Channel.” Media Matters for America, 30 Mar. 2021). In a video posted later in the day, Crowder announced his plan to live stream episodes on his Crowder Bits channel.” Besides insulting him throughout the whole piece, they paint the idea that Crowder violated the terms of service by making open claims that contradicted YouTube’s terms but also portrayed him as somebody who does not care about the consequences of his actions, that he did not commit. Something this cite ignores is that you are allowed to post on a separate channel as long as the content is different. While Crowder’s main channel is a live-streamed, full production with guests, Crowder’s second channel is a personal channel focusing on smaller clips and pre-recorded videos. The video, that was posted on his second channel after he got banned said or mentioned no such thing in regard to his continuation. It was a video explaining what happened and why he was banned. YouTube took down this video so the only way to watch it is on Instagram.

Source: Article from The Verge 

The most interesting thing was the call and response pattern from news sites like The Verge and Media Matters* in relation to YouTube’s handling of crowder’s account. They ban him, and articles come immediately after as the first sources to provide any information on the issue. Crowder sends a video out to explain what happened and the video and an article come out about him “ignoring” his ban and continuing to work. Then his video his banned. In short, YouTube and these news sites put out false articles defaming and vilifying Crowder while banning the original source of information that could be used to provide evidence for Crowder’s case. This issue is an example of these people circumventing the “Marketplace of Ideas” theory but framing the situation to push a particular narrative on one side with leaving space for the other side. The clash between truth and falsehood is virtually ripped from this exchange entirely. The “Promote Tolerance” theory is also gone in the sense that this whole issue stemmed from people not being able to tolerate other voices. Instead of being called “right-wing”, “Nazi”, or “white supremacist”, they only accuse him of being “conservative” (Hollister, Sean. “YouTube Has Removed Steven Crowder from Its Partner Program Indefinitely.” The Verge, The Verge, 30 Mar. 2021), as if that is all the criteria is needed for censorship. YouTube used to be a platform for open posting and free expression but overtime has become full of censorship and demonetization, with Crowder being another content creator made an example out of.

_____________________________________________________________________

Work Cited

Campbell, Written by Jason. “After Being Suspended from YouTube, Steven Crowder Announces His Plan to Evade It via His Other YouTube Channel.” Media Matters for America, 30 Mar. 2021, www.mediamatters.org/steven-crowder/after-being-suspended-youtube-steven-crowder-announces-his-plan-evade-it-his-other.

Hollister, Sean. “YouTube Has Removed Steven Crowder from Its Partner Program Indefinitely.” The Verge, The Verge, 30 Mar. 2021, www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22359191/steven-crowder-youtube-partner-program-suspension-demonetize-ads-strike-ban-misinformation.

 

Supreme Court Analysis

Post # 2

Nathaniel Bryant
March 30, 2021

Supreme Court Analysis: Reflection

_____________________________________________________________________

Source: Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 1; 1:44

The Supreme Court is the lead of the judicial branch and is one of the most powerful courts in world. Being the highest federal court in the U.S., the Supreme Court has many intricacies and factors that justify its position at the highest court level. 

Source: Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 1; 8:50

What most might not know about the Supreme Court, and what stood out to me, is that the cases they deal with a brought up by petitions. Regarding those petitions, I was surprised by the thousands of petitions that are submitted each year. Despite this large number of petitions, the Supreme Court only chooses a few. These cases are worked on by the Supreme Court justices and each individual staff or group to assist them. In the end, the hard work and decision-making all fall on the Supreme Court justices.

Source: Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 1; 9:45 

The most important fact that came from examining the Supreme Court is the important role that they play in their ruling. It is up to them to interpret the Constitution and use their knowledge and skills to collaborate or debate with each other to decide important matters in our country.

This examination changed the perspective I had on the Supreme Court. Despite how differently they may hold their own proclivities, they still have respect for each other and can still communicate with each other while not holding grudges throughout their terms.

_____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 1

Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 2

History.com Supreme Court source

 

Post # 1

Nathaniel Bryant
March 17, 2021

Personal Top 5 Sources of Information

_____________________________________________________________________

When gathering information, I tend to gravitate toward certain sources for credible news either to inform myself or to use in comparison to others to look for a definite answer on a topic. 

1. The Daily Wire - https://www.dailywire.com/ 

The Daily Wire is a news source that I have used for the longest time and has been the most credible. I have used sources like Fox and CNN a lot in the far past but slowly, this has been one of the sources that have stuck. When I was large in politics, I frequently tried to fact check cites together to find a good source and this so far has kept its’ credibility over time. I would recommend this source if you wanted to go beyond mainstream news and want to find something different, that is still credible.

2. Prager University - https://www.prageru.com/

Prager University is a great source of information that not only covers a variety of issues but examines them down to the root and brings on numerous guests to provide their experience and facts to the table on issues that get mostly swept under the rug. Their 5-minute videos are perfect for people who are new or don’t have time for politics. The address arguments in the question itself as well as the numerous side positions that come to flush out any gray areas on a topic. They are short but impactful and have good graphics to help illustrate what they are saying.

3. Fox News - https://www.foxnews.com/

I tend to use Fox news for information pertaining to more government-related issues rather than smaller stories. It provides a decent amount of coverage on politics I normally don’t go looking for but still fills in stories that are important to know. For more government-related matters Fox is a good place to go.

4. YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/

YouTube is a good place for accessing most of the other sources listed if you want to find videos from these new providers as well independent journalists and political commentators. You can find a variety of sources that are great for watching or listening to. It is also good to get information from independent providers who are not tied to a company or network who have more freedom in their coverage. The only issue is that YouTube does do some censorship on certain political YouTuber channels and videos. Even beyond that aspect it a great place for viewing information.

5. Timcast - https://timcast.com/

I started watching this channel years ago and I kept up with it, while I do not agree with everything he says sometimes because he covers lots of important topics and rings on guests who sometimes differ from him. He mostly does podcasts so it is easy to listen to and has lots of good information. 

_____________________________________________________________________