Final Post

 Final Post: Is my relationship with technology healthy? Nope. Neither is yours.

    To put it plain and simple, I don't think that anyone's truly is. Historically speaking, humans rely on tools as a means to further society however the internet and modern technology have become more of a lifestyle than anything. Especially in Generation Z, people utilize tech as a means of life. I can't go anywhere without my phone, I need my laptop to do the most basic work or assigned tasks, and I don't rent books from libraries I read text online. I don't necessarily think I am an outlier here in that I know for a fact there are so many more that utilize technology in much higher quantities than I. As a child, video games and the internet were just things to do on rainy days. I would be outside frolicking like any other kiddo but somewhere along the way, my perception of free time was skewed to strictly involve television, internet, iPhones, social media apps, games. While this is merely a complaint of the times, the likelihood of it getting any better is abysmal. My life is now online, during the pandemic school/work was streamed through video conferencing. Now? Pretty much nothing has changed except we speak in person. Technological reliance is at an all time high and I am far from the exception. I would love to sit here and type about how good I am at staying off of my phone but to be quite frank, there is no reason for me to lie. I use it so much everyday especially when I am simply bored. I look at my friends and my family and I am not the worst at usage but I'm definitely not the best.

    My family uses every aspect of the internet and have been absolutely infatuated with the concept of streaming since its public conception. Does this environment make for a socially normative human who thrives in extraverted circumstance? I would say yes honestly, if I had my choice between FaceTime or just spending time with someone, you get so much more out of an in person interaction. While many will argue it's the same thing, it just isn't. Humans are social animals at our biological baselines and to take that away through a medium does create a sense of absence. I think that our family has thrived because we are such proponents for tech all the while retaining the naturalist mentality that we could do it in person why do it over a phone. All in all, I didn't turn out objectively awkward... at least I hope not? Stating one isn't weird doesn't really make a great argument for technological causation though. I utilize it far more for a social experience than I do entertainment. I would rather speak to friends than play Candy Crush. Does it happen while I'm waiting to board an airplane? Of course. Am I spending my Friday nights on it? No. Technology is both man's greatest weapon and opponent. 

    Learning about AI was kind of scary in a sense. Besides the material provided through the course I think I remember reading or hearing about an AI from a rather large tech company that said it could think in every way humanity could except when thinking about loss or grief. I don't know about you but when I think of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison's electrical ingenuities I highly doubt they thought we would create apathetic robots just because we could. Our nation's and our world's relationship with technology is so geared towards progress that we aren't stopping to take note of our nature. Of course we can invent. Of course we can innovate. But at what cost? At what point do we collectively as not a nation but as a species say, "okay we're good"? When do we the people go back to just we the people? Why are we attempting to craft something that competes with our very existence aside from aiding us? There is no sense of urgency of course but there should be a sense of satisfaction rather than obsessive innovation. I am not an anti-innovation person but I don't think we really need to entertain the idea of implementing high levels of artificial intelligence all around the world out of convenience for the minority. The world's relationship with technology has shifted from usage, to reliance, to now entitlement, to next......

Age of AI

 Artificial Intelligence

In the first 30 seconds of the video, I think that there is a collection of really important quotes to expand upon. "In the age of information, data is the new oil and China is the new Saudi Arabia." "We all knew we were searching Google but did we know Google was searching us?" Right off the cuff the documentary began to state some pretty dangerous claims knowing that oil has lead the world to some extreme conflicts and that distrust in institutional tools is at an all time high. The video then goes on to show the capabilities of AI versus human intellect in context to the game Go. The world's best Go player went up against an AI competitor to which he lost 4-1. The fact that he was able to beat a computer that has recorded history of most Go tactics played thus far is impressive to me now. At the time, this was an amazing feat and something yet unheard of. Speaking more in depth on Asian AI advancement, China leads the fray as the helmsman for the artificial intelligence ship sailing into the lives of humanity. Its recognition and analytical softwares are capable of objectively approving loans using battery life of a device applied on as an indicator of customer reliability. All of these factors have arguable validity but it stands to present the case on the other end of the spectrum speaking on privacy. The video presented plenty of the reasons for why AI works but fails to recognize the outlying plausibilities that could detract from their perspectives that AI is inherently working for the betterment of humanity.

EOTO #2

 EOTO2: Alternative Media - What Could Go Wrong?

Alternative Media Rundown

Oxford Word Reference defines alternative media as "Non-mainstream media forms such as graffiti, street theatre, fanzines, pamphlets, and community newsletters—especially when used by minority groups for campaigning on particular issues." In the age of information, digital advancements have become the root of information warfare. More recently, American distrust in government and institutional media has paved way for more routes of alternative media. Blogs, secondary news networks, and podcasts have given far more power to the common man than ever before when dealing with news delivery. For centuries, the general public relied on specified media personnel to reveal the dealings with the rest of the world. Now, people can engage in personal research and thanks to vast educational expansion the information is much more viable. 

That being said, there are plenty of these self proclaimed journalists that exist to only indoctrinate their mindsets unto others even if they are far more extreme or questionable in the eyes of the general public. A fine example would rest in the past election. With Trump supporters being a peak example of present day extreme nationalism, this paved way for a plethora of government conspiracy theorists to bring what they believe to be true to light. Organizations such as QAnon or theorists of the government cabal have been given access to a much larger platform than seen in the past by a great deal. Thanks to Trump's "Swamp Mindset", theories; Americans lost a great deal of trust in the government as a whole. With that being the case, the vast amount of skeptics created a forum for the spread of such theories as well as tying in of their own antisemitic and racial biases furthering the lack of credibility to such resources. This is one of the negative ways alternative media can affect the country. 

However, they also exist in an effort to give information to those who feel underrepresented in media. Political party members of the Libertarian party are able to access things like The Cato Podcast or other media outlets such as Politico: Right, Left, Center as a means to get news for their party which is often underreported via mainstream news sources.

The utopian idea would be that everyone could get a neutral news source where there was little to no reported bias. This is just that though, an idea. There has been no true success story with the matter. Fox News claims to be fair and balanced but is right leaning. CNN claims to be a neutral news source but employs mostly opinion editorial writers as a means of reporting. More recently Newsmax has entered the scene and they're so opinionated on the far right handling of the nation, it has become propaganda. The implications here are fairly evident, as the news expands to represent those who watch. It loses its journalistic approach and becomes riddled with bias inherently destroying the idea of news and simply becoming an open forum of conversation. Soon, the only accurate reporting will be able to be dealt by the government on genuine happenings but no one trusts them. This forms a cycle of distrust and could lead to an era of catastrophic societal repercussions. 

Alternative media serves as an amazing place for its creators but rests as a huge issue for the future of news as a whole. There could be a day where there are so many sources and thusly sources of bias where people could not discern what is true and what is just a matter of opinion. At this current moment, all this means is that the general public really needs to learn how to properly vet the sources they are reading and sharing. If that doesn't start happening at a bigger scale than what we have seen in the past decades, the divide in America could grow too large to manage.

Privacy

 Life online - Do we have a private life?

    Facebook/Meta, has gotten a lot of flack recently regarding the privacy of its patrons. Since the wikileaks debacle with Julian Asange at its epicenter, the American public have become increasingly weary of their privacy in regards to the lives they lead online. Facebook uses patron data as a means to corroborate online metrics and engagement to aid in third party advertisers and the creation of relevant data tailored to each of its users. Users are then presented with accounts, movements, ads, and posts deemed applicable to their individual lives. People have a serious issues with the internet tracking that comes from being a Facebook user. People think they are signing up for just another social media site but the harsh reality is there is a significant amount of data mining that goes into the catered user experience. Because the fine print has come to light and people actually spent a few seconds longer reading the terms and conditions, there has been a substantial amount of outrage. Privacy data and consumer metrics are stored in Facebook information storage and can be sold to marketing projects all by clicking "I agree", on a quick little privacy update from the company. I for one, do not allow apps to track my data. I am very cautious when using social media sites as I'm just not necessarily comfortable or confident in Mark Zuckerberg's handling of any much less my information. The Facebook data model is all too similar to the NSA and other intelligence agencies which feels eerily similar to China's personal tracking methods which in my opinion directly impede on the individual in society. I don't think the government is doing anything because they too are guilty of it. New information laws being passed take years of editing and refinement to even approach the house floor. To protect one's self its important to read terms and conditions but also log out of accounts and be selective with location services. Moving forward, I do believe that companies will cater more towards the user but there are reasons for concern or at least to question the motives of the corporations.

Antiwar

 AntiWar? Why is it hidden and who's hiding it?

    In laymen's terms, war is bad. I think most people would argue to agree in modern society. After living for only two decades and seeing the atrocities committed during the war in Afghanistan, the bloodshed during the Arab Spring, and more recently the conflict in Ukraine, as well as the Uyghur genocide occurring in China it is certainly of my opinion that war is the most pressing threat to humanity as it has been since the beginning of modern civilizations. While that is a civilian perspective therein lies the perspective by those in power as war and defense are industries that have flourished in America through the latter half of the 20th century. Private defense companies aid in military research where most of the defense budget is actually allocated. There are naval aircraft carriers that don't have working AC or proper water dispensaries however a single plane can be priced at over $100 million. How does that seem fair? Why isn't that a more commonly known fact? The answer rests in a construct built into the American government known as the Iron Triangle. Congressional support is garnered through lobbyists and bureaucrats to fund military and defense bills as a method to further the American manufacturing industries via mining, construction, and infrastructure. War requires weapons, weapons require materials, materials require labor. War makes jobs, circulates money, and funds technological innovations. Finding antiwar resources requires readers to actively seek them out. The mainstream news certainly isn't covering something that a. would impeded on economic development in government and b. not garner shock value results in viewership. Antiwar protests are seen as something that simply already happened during the 60's and 70's but they still happen, their causes are just significantly quieter because the media has moved on. 

Diffusion

 Diffusion: Why Music Streaming just... Happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APC0R8vhMyc

    Streaming is a term that came around within the past two decades and denotatively moved past its previous terminology into a modernized technological and information based spread of ideas, information, and art forms at an instantaneous speed. To stream a movie, tv show, or song now is a commodity in American society. A little over a decade ago Netflix was a mail order dvd rental service and launched its streaming platform instantly creating a gravitational field pulling the masses to its service. After Netflix other providers whether it be; Hulu, a former YouTube competitor became a subscription based streaming platform highlighting currently airing networks and offering next day video streaming. After the video streaming services, the next and most natural form of streaming would be seen in music. There were plenty of illegal sites where people could listen to songs or even just on YouTube. Apple Inc., came through with yet another major innovation with the creation of its subscription music streaming service Apple Music. Apple Music offered customers the ability to listen to any and all of its streaming library for a flat monthly fee. The music library was swiftly what would take over the pre-existing service seen in iTunes. No longer would customers have to pay for each individual song, but would have free reign across almost all artists allowing musicians to skyrocket at rates never before seen. Music streaming would soon become the more popular method for listening to music. Spotify, Soundcloud, Tidal all came along and expanded the streaming force. This detracted from people who were buying albums and singles by an exponential rate. This created an issue with artistic sovereignty and artistic compensation but was quickly combatted by the creation of the MMA (Music Modernization Act). With that law's conception, the argument for streaming became even more compelling from not only a consumer perspective but also distributors, labels, and artists. The adoption of music streaming was adopted so freely simply due to convenience and affordability. There are far fewer negatives than there are positives especially with the legal protections now in place. For $7.99 you couldn't even buy a full-length album on iTunes, now its enough to buy the entire discographies of over 10,000 of your favorite artsits.