Final Blog Post: My relationship with technology

 

My Online Presence

My Overall Relationship with Technology:

Often we think of our online presence in a negative way and something that can only harm us in the future or prevent us from getting that dream job. I think of my overall relationship with technology as something positive and something that helps me build who I am as a person. I use technology for an appropriate amount of time because now I use it to leveral my personal brand and for professional purposes in order to be the most successful. Technology and social media now has become a place to take a political stance but I try and stray away from such posts when I can. As information is out there both reliable and unreliable, I believe that I am competent enough to know what is good and what is bad information. This is something that I have accepted as an individual and is something I know we have accepted as a society. 

My Friends and Family and Technology:

This topic is something that definitely is an issue for us all because we all have that one friend or family member that posts obvious fake information or bizarre posts. I know for me this isn't necessarily my family that does so but more friends and people from my past. What I think is interesting is the specific social media sites that incite such posts such as Facebook or the story feature on Instagram. I think everyone tries to use technology in positive ways but that isn't always the case. For many it is what they see on social media that encourages such behavior of their own. I think technology for my friends has caused some problems because we see what each other post on social media and then take a stance without speaking to the individual. 

My Online Footprint:

This is something we all ponder on a daily basis, what can potential employers see? What do friends see? and what does my own family see? I have looked myself up plenty of times in the past as a way to see what would come up if my name had been searched. Below is a screenshot of what comes up when I search my name into Google:

For me it is my LinkedIn profile that appears first which is a good way for employers to see me in a professional way. Following are various golf tournaments I have played in, my NCAA profile and White Pages. I have nothing on the internet that I wouldn't want anyone else to see and I have always strived for that to be the case throughout my life. On social media accounts themselves it is either school, sports, or politics that is shared across my accounts. Most of my political opinions are held within the Instagram story option as that is a safe place for such opinions. My family comes up in images as well as news articles that involve my name, nothing of which would be of any harm to me. I think individuals really just need to focus on what they post and understand there is a time and place for different posts. While I have become less careful with political posts, I understand the environment is changing and it is something that will be a common factor in the future. 

The “Mainstream Media” and its Effects on Society

Mainstream Media

What is the “Mainstream Media” or MSM?

We are all familiar with the term “Mainstream media” or MSM which is used to describe the large mass news media that influences large groups of people. Most of the big companies in the world own roughly 90% of what we watch. These companies are GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. While the mainstream media may be a good place to get the news, there are often some problems that we run into when dealing with these sources. 

What are the effects of “Mainstream Media” on our lives? 

The mainstream media plays a large part in the dissemination of “Fake news” and according to a journal I found, there are four different reasons that they cover it. (Tsfati  et al., 2020) I want to include these reasons found in this journal because it really was interesting to try and uncover how they think as journalists. 

Here is the link to the article itself; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443

1. Journalists role perceptions: The role and ability to uncover what is fact vs. fiction and present that to the public. 

2. Traditional news values: Fake news is newsworthy to them and is worth sharing whether to uncover it or deliver it. 

3. Psychology of news decisions: Journalists pay attention to other journalists and the information that they are sharing. 

4. Infrastructure for covering what is in the online world: Their ability to locate fake news and look into the web to uncover it. 

Although journalists spend lots of time trying to correct the information given, that is not often always the case and I think that is seen now more than ever. Although I still check in with the mainstream media, that is not the only place I look now for my news because I like to see all sides of one story. Often it isn't the story itself that is strewed, but the headline that is. I tend to think that because some mainstream media like to deliver false headlines, it funnels down to other smaller media sources until it is out of control. The mainstream media has the power to make an impact on the world both in positive and negative ways. This in particular ties into the four different reasons and the fourth one in particular about covering what is in the online world. Because while they can see what it happening in the online world, they often are also the cause for these stories. 

Do you think that we will see a shift with the mainstream media and a transition to more alternative forms of media? How much trust do you have in the mainstream media for your daily news? I think often we could see similar answers to these questions with the recent events in our world. I certainly have lost more trust in the media recently because I think their four reasons that they cover a story has changed and I think the shift is now more to shed fear amongst their viewers. As we all get our news now it is important to understand that although we still may turn to the mainstream media for news, we must check numerous sources in order to ensure we are getting the correct news. 

Sources

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443

https://ochen.com/the-mainstream-media-is-rigged-msm/

https://techstartups.com/2020/09/18/6-corporations-control-90-media-america-illusion-choice-objectivity-2020/

Privacy is not so "Private" anymore

 

"Privacy"

What do you think of when you think of the word privacy? Do you think of something that is not revealed to a larger group? Do you think of something only you know that nobody else knows? Well now privacy is really not so "private" now, it may be private from your friends or family but not the companies that control your information or the government. The invasion of your privacy has become more of a business model than anything else and an excuse for the "big tech" to sell your information and make money off of you. Most companies have what is called an adhesion contract which is a contract in which one party holds all the power and can change the contract whenever they want to. This means that you could have the contract change without you even knowing what changes. Data mining is a way for these companies to collect various bits of information about you and use it however they may choose. They use some of the following to do so; user-generated content, tracking malware, deep packet inspection, voice recognition, and facial recognition. All of these terms are ways for companies such as Google or Facebook to acquire your information and keep it in their database forever.

Two terms that we learned in class that I had never heard of are the 3rd-Party Doctrine and the Shrink-Wrap Contract. The 3rd-Party Doctrine states that when the first party voluntarily gives information to the second party, it relinquishes all control over the use of that information by the third. This blew my mind that your information is essentley distributed and you lose all control of it at that point. The Shrink-Wrap Contract, which makes more sense to me although it doesn't make it less scary, states that once you open the box you agree to certain terms of service and conditions. For me this is visibly seen with Apple products and how once you open it you put your face recognition in, give up your information, and have no control over where that information ends up. Although you give up all this information to Apple, they have always been on the forefront of privacy and one ad campaign that I love is from them. Here it is below;

This ad focuses on over-sharing and how your information may not be as hidden as you may think. Privacy is one of the big reasons I continue to use Apple products and I think they will be on the forefront of privacy for years to come.

Rogers Diffusion of Innovations and the

 

Diffusion of Innovations and Smart Watches

(Source: Coolblue.nl)

Rogers Diffusion of Innovations looks at how different things become popular, by who, and how they become less popular over time. There are 5 different groups of people to consider when discussing this and they include the pioneers, early adopters, early majority, late adopters, and laggards. Each of these groups of people play a key role in the diffusion of innovations. The exploratory stage is the early stage where the pioneers take charge, and at the other end you have the laggards who have no real desire and they are in the moderation stage. Below is the diagram of what this looks like and it shows the different stages as well as the popularity of that innovation.

Let's take a look at  smart watches and view it through the lense of the Diffusion Theory to better understand how they gained their popularity. I had one of the first smart watches myself when Apple came out with the "Series 1 Apple Watch" This was the next greatest piece of technology and allowed for you to have your phone with you on your wrist. I think this is something that caught on by many because it was convenient and we all love convenience these days. It allowed for you to not even need to take out your phone and still do most of the same functions. This is one piece of technology that I know a lot of people became early adopters to and all wanted to have that futuristic technology on their wrist. Those that were early adopters had a smartphone and wanted to make it smarter by having that same functionality but on their wrist. Those who were late adopters to owning a smartwatch were probably the ones who didn't see a purpose because for a while I know you still needed to have your phone with you in order to send messages and have that same functionality. 

My mother was one who did not see a purpose at first because it was something else she had to charge and keep track of. These late adopters had to wait to see a strong purpose and I think now a lot of them are using smartwatches for the functionality of them. For those who have not adopted this technology at all they are either one of two people, those who like old-school and like to wear a regular watch, or those who do not have a smartphone so they have no need for a smartwatch. 

(Source: Techradar.com)

Walking around campus today you will see almost every student, faculty member, and staff member with some form of smartwatch on their wrist varying from a Fitbit to an Apple Watch. The functionality of such a technology has only gotten greater and allowed for us to track everything right there on our wrist. When you workout you can track heart rate, count steps, and do workouts all from your wrist. Because we have all become so relied on our technology I do not think that a downside is that it is another piece of technology. As the world changes we all must adapt and smartwatches while they can be a distraction, help prevent health issues you may not notice, and notify you of important things if your phone is not handy. They are a piece of technology that has essentially become as popular and mainstream as the smartphone itself and are only getting smarter and more responsive. The positives overall outweigh the negatives because nowadays they are helping people know if they are having a stroke or are even sick with COVID. As the price of these watches goes up, so do the benefits and I think there will be a point in the future where everyone has a smartwatch just like they have a smartphone. 

Sources

https://www.techradar.com/news/best-android-smartwatch

https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/how-does-smartwatch-work.html

EOTO Evolution of Technology

 

Instagram, Google, YouTube, Facebook

One thing that we all can agree on is that there are platforms that we use in our daily lives, and we tend to not think about who owns them. Some of the presentations that I heard from other students were about Instagram, Google, YouTube, and Facebook. All of these companies either are owned by one another or own one another. This is something that has always been mind boggling for me to understand because these successful small companies always end up getting bought out by the bigger ones. Instagram was bought by Facebook in 2012 for 1 billion dollars which seems like a lot now but their value has only skyrocketed since then. What I find interesting is what gives companies like Facebook the knowledge they need to know these companies will be successful in the future. To me it almost seems as if it is a monopoly and the "Big Tech" owns and influences so much.

Google and YouTube

Google began in 1995 by a student working on a research project and the goal was to develop the enabling technologies for a single digital library. The domain became registered in 1997 and it wasn't until 2001 that the first CEO was hired. This small project now has become the biggest search engine and one of the most powerful companies in the world.  YouTube, now owned by Google, started out as a dating site in 2004. Users started to post their own content and that is how the platform became the current YouTube that we know. The rise of YouTube was all started by the users ability to share mostly what they wanted. This platform is one of the more interesting to me because it connects people from all over the world together and of all interests. One of the pages that I see making an impact is a guy who grew up with no father and his goal is to teach kids with no fathers how to do things. His videos are all call "Dad how do I..." I think this shows the impact of YouTube itself and how it can influence people's lives in so many ways. Did Google know the potential of YouTube when it was a dating site? Well the new CEO worked for Google at the time and recommended that Google at least look into it. In 2006 Google Acquired YouTube for $1.65 Billion dollars, in 2019 alone they made 19 billion dollars. I was fortunate enough to be on a call with Sundar Pichai the CEO of Google over the summer and it was interesting to hear what he had to say about everything going on. 

Facebook and Instagram

Instagram was founded in 2010 by and they created the app to have people communicate through images. Two months after it was founded, Instagram had 1 million users on the platform and it wasn't until 2012 that Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion dollars. Facebook now owns more platforms than its competitors and I think that it gives them too much control to alter reality to what they want it to be. I think this was most prevalent in this past election where they influenced and censored opinions that the platform did not agree with. I saw firsthand this election cycle how Facebook used their power to shelter even my own opinions on the platform. It now creates a different approach to political campaigning and the spread of national events. I think this is both a positive and negative aspect of these platforms because it creates a place for people to be attacked for their values above all. 

Do you think that more companies will be bought out by the big companies? Or is it time for them to move over and make room for more platforms to grow? The impact of these companies on our country has been both positive and negative but now causes more debate over how much control they truly have on us as Americans. I am worried to see the control they will have in the future after this past election and the riots that occured. 

Sources

https://fortune.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-youtube-ads-business-q4/

https://tectogizmo.com/share-facebook-instagram-android/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-big-tech-stocks-grow-without-limits-1523032264

The Evolution of Personal Computer

 

The Personal Computer (PC)

Evolution of the Computer

The computer we know of today or more commonly known as a PC was not always as convenient or complex as they are today. There are three different evolutions of the modern day computer starting with the computer age, post war innovation, and the invention of the modern day PC. These three times are ones that I thought would be important to highlight as seen through an article done by the History Channel.

The Rise of the First Computer (1946): During the computer age, the first computers were created and they were large to the point where they took up whole rooms, were expensive, and looked nothing like the modern day personal computer. The first and most famous computer was used to do military calculations during WWII and was a huge advancement for technology. Although it was expensive it woke up Universities and other businesses to see what that potential could be. The ENIAC was the computer that proved to these businesses how worth it it was. It was able to do what man could do in less time and do a better job as well. (History, 2019)

Innovation Excels (1971): During this time we were able to see the development of the microprocessor which completely eliminated the need for the integrated-circuit chip that was created by TI in 1971. The computers shrunk vastly in size and completed changed in size. The one component that made computers so large up until this point was the microprocessor. An engineer who worked for Intel invented the integrated-circuit in 1971.

The Modern Day Personal Computer (1977): Although there were many people who came up with similar PCs to the ones that we know of today, the most famous of them are Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs. Apple was founded in 1977 which changed how computers were viewed for the future. Microsoft also had come out with a computer similar to the Apple computer, but the Apple was better in many ways. It contained better memory and a screen which was new to everyone at the time.

The Impact of the PC on Humanity

Now that you know some of the history of the PC it is important to know what the impact was and how it is shaping us as humanity today. Although these computers were vastly different compared to what they used to look like, they still weigh in on our everyday lives. Personal Computers now are not just desktop computers or laptops, but they are phones and tablets as well. They allow you to have access to the internet no matter where you are. 

One quote from a US News article that I found interesting was this "In the U.S., we now see there are more software developers and programmers than there are lawyers or automobile mechanics. This makes up for one big block of growing jobs." - David Dorn (US News, 2016) 

This struck me because the jobs that used to be the foundation and the building blocks of America are not the same anymore. Now we need people who know about computers because even cars are becoming more complex. Lawyers now may need to know more about computers to deal with cyber crimes and privacy issues instead of what they learned in law school. 

We can argue that computers have allowed us all to be better at what we do, but do they have other negative effects on us as humans? I think there are pros and cons to computers, but one thing I know for certain is that they are not going away and we need to adapt to the changing world. I personally see this with some smaller businesses who get hurt because they do not have a strong internet presence. Will robots and computers take over the things we do today or will there still be a need for human touch? These are questions that I think about daily when I see new advances in technology.

Do you think computers have helped or hurt society?

Sources

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-12/productivity-inequality-and-the-profound-impact-of-the-personal-computer

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-pc 

https://www.teknogadyet.com/2018/07/modern-pc-powered-by-windows-and-intel.html

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/k12/the-journey-inside/explore-the-curriculum/microprocessors.html

https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/birth-of-the-computer/4/78

http://www.hoylen.com/photos/2009-west/06-computer-history/pic5.html

Free Expression and Free Speech

 Eight Values of Free Expression

And the First Amendment

What are the Eight Values of Free Expression and how do they tie in with the First Amendment? Are there some values that are more prevalent than others? The news today is full of First Amendment issues and the issue of cancel culture, all of these values can tie in to current news. I will look to rank the values from most important to least important. Although I highlight the most important and tie it to a current event in the news. The ranking of importance is as follows; 

1. Protect Dissent

2. Promote Tolerance

3.  Check on Governmental Power

4. Marketplace of Ideas

5. Stable Change 

6. Participation in Self-Government

7. Promote Innovation

8. Individual Self-fulfillment

While all of these may be important in our society today, I will focus on the first one and how it relates to present day and more specifically how it shows up in the news today.  

1. Protect Dissent: To Protect dissent is to protect all views no matter how unpopular they may be.

Today more than ever we are faced with cancel culture and the desire to use mob mentality to hurt people that we disagree with. It states specifically that our culture is to not be one of mob rule which unfortunately is the most prevalent deciding factor in people's lives. I know many people myself that have been directly affected by cancel culture and it has ruined them to the point of seeking various outlets. Without disagreements and viewpoints we as a country would not be who we are today because it takes all kinds to make up one body. You are allowed to disagree with everyone including the government, but it is your duty to criticize the government and not your peers. There are no laws that state that you can't say this or you can't say that, but instead it is our culture that has made certain things wrong to say or do. The main issue that I have with this one and how dissent is not being protected is that someone disagrees with them and builds up the mob mentality to expose them on social media. Publicly shaming someone for something they said to the point where they lose a job or get rejected from their dream school isn't what our country was built on. We are allowed to dispute and disagree with others, we are not allowed to expose them or use mob mentality and cancel culture to ruin somebody's life. 

Luckily for most of us we are not as exposed to constant monitoring and the spotlight like actors and actresses are. We have noticed recently all of the famous people being exposed for various things that they have said or done and it sets the wrong precedent. By cancelling famous people we are setting the bar and the picture that cancelling people is the right thing to do. Cancelling someone for something they did does not protect all views regardless of their popularity and is dangerous water that we are crossing into. One thing to think about is the power that famous people and athletes have to influence cancel culture. 

One example of recent news that I want to tie into this value is the recent debate with Kelly Loeffler and the WNBA. We all know that the WNBA has their own values and controversial stances on current issues and this affected Loeffler who is a co-owner of the Atlanta dream. Because she did not agree with the mission of "Black Lives Matter" even her own players were in support of her opponent during the elections. Like many people, the organization BLM seems a little too radical and that is the case for Loeffler. Unfortunately because she lost the support of her own players and colleagues, many thought she did not have a place in the WNBA. Although she has not given up that co-ownership there is pressure from everyone for her to give it up. This is where the term mob rule comes into play, because she does not align with their values, they turned on her and now want her out. Since when did not aligning with ones values become enough to force someone to sell their part ownership in the company. This article ties back to Protect Dissent and protecting all views no matter how unpopular they may be. Regardless of whether or not you may agree with Loeffler and her values, they are to be protected under the First Amendment and the Eight Values of Free Expression. These athletes used the leverage that they had to play into the cancel culture movement, one thing athletes should never do. 

Although athletes have the power to influence major events there are times where it is better that they sit back instead of trying to take a stand. Those involved in the mob mentality against protecting dissent often are not the ones directly affected by the event but instead want to publicly shame them. While there may be viewpoints that we often disagree with, it is better to sit back and protect all viewpoints instead of fueling the mob rule. America would not be America without Free Speech and Free Expression and we must stay true to our roots and the founding principles for which our founding fathers built this country on.

Sources

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/kelly-loeffler-doesnt-belong-in-the-wnba/617632/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/sports/basketball/wnba-dream-loeffler-warnock.html

America and The War on America

 America: The War on America

What do you think of when you think of war? Violence? Money? America? Often we hear in the news that the United States might go to war with this country, or is at war with this country, but do we ever hear that maybe we should not encourage war with anyone? Most media is out promoting war and fear mongering in order to get Americans rattled or to expect war. Both the American Conservative and Antiwar.com focus on news as it should be. I focused on reading articles and headlines on American Conservative because it was less busy of a website and easier to focus on the headlines themselves. There are many news sources out there that focus on promoting wars and encouraging them, these websites do the opposite. To better understand why we may have to seek out random websites such as these two, I will pick articles from each and try to break them down compared to what you may see in the mainstream media. The picture below is one that I thought fit well with this topic and had to include it. War itself is good for the media, good for politicians, and good for the countries we fight against, not for the common folk. Us as Americans suffer from war and fear but that is one thing that most media loves to encourage. 

The American Conservative

(Source: The American Conservative)

The article that I chose to observe on this website is titled "Why is America 'Contingency Planning' For War With Iran" ( Boland, 2021) In this article the main focus seems to be that America has recently made a deal with Saudi Arabia to use some bases in case of a war with Iran. The author really tries to dig down as to why they would label this as a 'Contingency plan' for a war that has not happened yet. For me I think the main reasoning for such a plan would have to be the fact that our relations with foreign countries will not look good in the next four years. If we as a country have to plan on having a war, then why not start the war as bad and dark as that may sound. Why isn't our focus on foreign relations like our last President did? The answer is in the mainstream media and this article, because the media loves to fearmonger. This article does a good job of trying to do the opposite but instead understand why we would want to encourage a war. We have seen this tactic not only about war, but most recently the virus and using scare tactic for political leverage. The more they make us afraid, the more they make money and the more they make political gains. Seeking out an obscure website such as this one to find news that discourages war only makes sense because of the world in which we live in. The media looks for popularity and money which would not be brought by anti-war tactics. I believe there should be more in the media such as The American Conservative but for now we will have to seek out obscure websites for this kind of news. 

Anitwar.com

(Source: Anitwar.com) 

The article that I chose on Antiwar.com is titled "Iran Says It Will Not Comply With Nuclear Deal Until US Lifts Sanctions" (DeCamp, 2021) What this article brings to my mind is what this country looked like from 2009-2017 when we were bowing down at the feet of other countries. Iran does not want to comply with us until we give up the sanctions that we have on them. This topic itself is one that focuses on what could happen with our country and Iran over the next few years. In the mainstream media it would be an article titled "US to Comply with Iran and Lift Sanctions" The media wants us to go to war, they have always encouraged war and have often forgotten we still have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan who have been there for three quarters of my life. This article gives us as the reader all of the information that we need to transcribe it for ourselves instead of telling us what we need to think. The article never says it is likely that we will lift sanctions, or that we will be going to war unless we do this. That's what I like about this website and its goal to not steer our thoughts in one direction but to leave that part up to us. 

"Every War in The Past 50 Years is a result of media lies."

- Julian Assange

Sources

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-is-america-contingency-planning-for-war-with-iran/

https://news.antiwar.com/2021/01/29/iran-says-it-will-not-comply-with-nuclear-deal-until-us-lifts-sanctions/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-american-conservative-is-looking-for-a-ceo/

https://www.antiwar.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_movement

http://www.picturequotes.com/media-and-war-quotes

Are There Limits to the First Amendment?

 

The First Amendment and Censorship

(Source: Dolan Law Firm)

What is the 1st Amendment? and Why is it so important?

We all know that this country has its founding principles and guidelines put in place that we have followed for hundreds of years. The Amendments are often those principles that we all live by each day in particular, the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and many others. Recently the one that has been in the news a lot is the 1st Amendment, which includes a larger umbrella of freedoms. These freedoms include Speech, Religion, Press, Protest, and Petition. This has been a particular "hot" issue lately because it has been spoken about along with the term censorship. Only the government can violate the Constitutional rights meaning without government involvement, no Constitutional claim can be made. What is such an issue with this statement is that by this definition, the 1st Amendment does not reach private sectors. There are many factors that fall under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment which we will look into further to better understand current news stories. 

State Action Doctrine (Protected vs. Unprotected Speech)

Protected (Speech) 

VS

Unprotected Speech (Action = Harm) 

(Incitement) 

These two words or types of speech lead to the term "Expressive Action" which is an action intended to send a message to an audience or speech that causes imminent lawless action. 

By this definition a speech would have to be the cause of violence in order for it to fall under the unprotected speech category which often becomes a gray area. This recently occured with the Capitol Riots and Trump, where people claimed that his speech caused those individuals to storm the Capitol. When I first heard about that and people claiming it was his fault I had to look at both sides of the situation. On one hand maybe people could make the claim that he got the hopes up of many and they broke when nothing "happened" but on the other hand he simply wanted them to rally like they always do and some individuals broke the law. By no means do I condone the riots but to say Trump caused them under the "State Action Doctrine" is improbable and lacks the necessary evidence. 

The Three Bedrock Principles

1. First Amendment protection is not absolute

2. First Amendment is not a shield against laws of general applicability

3. Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right", not an institutional right

Why do the 1st Amendment and its principles matter today?

There are many reasons to be worried about our freedom of speech and censorship in the current world because it is a hot topic with the big tech and their involvement in our lives. I found an article in Forbes that spoke about the 1st Amendment and how under the 1st Amendment what happened to Trump was justified. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/01/12/why-social-media-companies-can-censor-trump-and-why-your-boss-can-censor-you/?sh=62e05b8a7b79

This article states that "Trump's First Amendment Rights were not violated," (Spiggle, 2021) Although the statement made is true, I still do not believe it was justified that they banned his accounts on both Twitter and Facebook because it now becomes an issue on how much control these private companies have over "We the People." Twitter claimed that Trump incited violence and according to this article they say that he violated their community guidelines. From what I know he simply tweets messages out and more often than not he is not violating guidelines, but simply stating objecting opinions. You can argue that it is the private sector and is not protected, but by that statement itself censorship is happening. I have this discussion with people often and like to remind them the differences between a news station, and a social media platform. 

(Source: Comparitech)

Social media is user-created content meaning we the users put up the content or share other content. A news station gives us the content and we read it which means if it something we don't agree with we do not have too much of a choice. On social media we post things and we probably see things we do not agree with. For the most part the content on social media that one would post would not get them silenced on a platform. The issue I have with this article is that they are telling us why social media companies can censor us but they forgot the issues of only censoring what they might disagree with. I do however agree with his statement saying "The more complicated answer probably adds other considerations, such as politics, public perception and company profitability." (Spiggle, 2021) This statement itself gives us the answer in relation to the "State Action Doctrine" which states protected speech vs unprotected speech. 

In this scenario Trump gave a speech directed at his following, a riot occured, and suddenly social media companies were more worried about profit and public perception than anything else. If social media companies continue to want to censor others and filter the news we see on their platforms, than I see no reason they can't be held to the same standards of a news source. I also like to consider "The Three Bedrock Principles" and the third one in particular which states that the freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" and is not confined to the newspapers. By this principle I do not see how social media companies feel they can censor our freedom to share our opinions on their platforms. 

This article and discussion leads me to a famous quote by one of the Founding Fathers;

"Let us dare to read, think, speak and write." 

- John Adams

At one point are only a few of us allowed to think, allowed to speak, and allowed to write? I think that is an interesting question and one that scares me for our future. We can all have opinions but some opinions may never be seen by those who need to see it most. 

Sources

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/01/12/why-social-media-companies-can-censor-trump-and-why-your-boss-can-censor-you/?sh=62e05b8a7b79

https://ammo.com/articles/first-amendment-quotes-founding-fathers-freedom-of-speech-freedom-of-press

https://dolanlawfirm.com/2017/08/13495/

https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/guide-to-online-censorship/

The History of the Highest Court

 The Supreme Court

Some of the biggest moments in history have been decided in the highest court or the Supreme Court and have shaped our perspective of the law. It is the most powerful judicial body on earth and is solely based on the Constitution. (Stephens, 2013) 

There have been only roughly 100 Supreme Court Justices since the establishment of the court itself and there is a strong focus on the confirmation process itself. John Marshall was named Chief Justice in 1801 after the Act of Congress was deemed unconstitutional. The court now roughly takes in 100 cases each year while actually receiving thousands. This is crazy to think about as often you hear about a few big cases each year that catch national recognition, often on key topics. Although I had not known much about the Supreme Court previously, I always found it interesting how much power they had in controversial topics of discussion.

(Source: AP News)

Public Faith and The Constitution

There are two major factors that shape the highest court and that is public faith and The Constitution. The power that the Supreme Court has is only as strong as the faith that the public has in them and the document itself. I know for myself I look to the Supreme Court to make the right decisions in determining some of the most controversial topics from abortion to voter fraud. Although there are times we may not agree with their decision we have to understand it is the right one based on the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. The 14th Amendment itself told the court that they could not control state power, meaning that you are not only a citizen of the United States but of the State in which you reside in. Because the court relies on public faith and the Constitution we may sometimes disagree with their decisions. 

    

We have to understand that they are working under the rule of law and for the people. I often look to the first line of the Constitution when I think about the law and our country "We the People." Our country is made up of us the people and is directed by those in government who serve us and this country. I think there is a disconnect with politicians who decide that they do not work for the people, but instead themselves. This is one constant within the Supreme Court itself with the goal to serve us, the people. 

(Source: National Center for Constitutional Studies)

A Self Inflicted Wound

Although the Supreme Court is often on the right side of public opinion, there have been many cases where the public has not agreed with their decisions. One case that caused a stir was the Dred Scott case, a case in which Scott claimed freedom under Congress. In this case the Supreme Court said that they could not determine that which caused uproar among citizens. (Stephens, 2013) Current day they have not faced issues such as this one, but instead have people on both sides of the aisle who agree and disagree with the courts decisions. 

Present day and The Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court has the history of detachment on their side which makes it easier for them to make decisions.  The feelings that occur about many of these decisions are minimal and often cause very little backlash for the members of the court. I know for me there are times I disagree with the court but know in the back of my mind they are making the best decision for the country. Do you often feel that you disagree with the courts decisions? Is it harder for them to make decisions knowing the social pressure from both sides? Or is it easier because they know they care about the Constitution and the founding principles. I think these are questions we all consider when we hear about a new case on the news that is being taken up with the Supreme Court. 

 

My Daily "5"

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, there is one thing that we as individuals can agree on; News sources have biases. There are more biased news sources such as CNN or Fox News and then those that are more neutral such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. This data was brought to me by the interactive media chart. (Ad fonts Media, 2021) Because of these biases I find it important to study various sources of news daily. Here are the sources in which I receive daily news or what I consider my daily "5"

The first source in which I receive my news is Fox News and although they are right-biased, I align with their values and politics. What makes Fox News different than other news stations is that they are more unfiltered than other news sources and speak fact instead of fiction. I have the app on my phone that sends notifications to me which also adds to the convenience factor of the source itself. What I like about their news station specifically is the fact that they offer plenty of shows allowing you to hear from various perspectives. Not all of the people that are brought on the show lean right which allows for an outsider perspective. 

My next source in which I check my news is CNN which may be surprising seeing that my primary source of news is Fox. I check out the news on CNN after looking at Fox because I am aware that both stations have biases and I like to see the same story on both pages. What I find to be the most interesting is how different the headline of the same story may be from a Fox News article. It just shows you that there are biases, but seeing both sides allows for you to obtain all of the information that you need. I recommend looking at both sides of the aisle when getting your daily news. 

Instagram is my next source of news and that is because I can see multiple sources of information all in the comfort of one app. I follow various accounts that post news, but also rely on what my friends post to get current news updates. With something like Instagram, everyone is allowed to post what they want regardless of if it is completely true or not. Although this is a problem for many people, it allows you to see how quickly news spreads, true or not. I can differentiate the differences between the real news I see and the fake news most of the time by who posts it. It is good because now even news sources will break news on social media before it breaks anywhere else. 

Recently I have also been getting my news from the recently popular news source, Newsmax. I have been watching them lately because even the sources that tend to lean one way have been biased towards their own viewers. Their goal is to provide news as the facts without bias and that is what they have done thus far. Their headlines are as cut and dry as they can be which leaves it to us as the viewers to interpret it as we see it. I think even if you lean left it is worth taking a look at Newsmax for your daily news. 

My final source of news is the New York Times because I have always seen it as a trusted source of both US news and world news. They tend to deliver the news as it happens and is usually one of the first places to come out with a story, while also having accurate news. I recommend this to anyone looking for relatively unbiased news in a timely manner. 

Having 5 daily sources of news each day may take an extra 15 minutes in the morning, but it allows you to see how perspectives of news from all different angles. Next time you go to open your go-to app for news, try opening up a few more and broadening your news