My Technology - The Final Post

    Technology can be very helpful in today's world. But it can also be harmful. Therefore, I have a large series of questions about my technology that I am going to be asking myself. I need to analyze myself, and figure this out.  

Do I believe my relationship with technology is healthy?

    Short answer: no, not a chance. Long answer? No, with reasoning. So lets discuss that. I believe I am on my phone way to often. In the mornings before class, I do the New York Times wordle, connections, and Mini crossword to freshen up my mind. I find it nice to do some brain games, but it does add to screen time. I also have a habit of playing Pokemon Go all day, and I can say for certain that this is not healthy for me. It is an addiction. When I am back in my dorm, I like to sometimes play video games, or watch television.

 I say I do it to relax, but how helpful is it really? Reading a book might be better. I try to stay off snapchat throughout the day, as I prefer to text, but I do go on Instagram or Reddit periodically throughout the day, and look at memes, reels, or just stuff that spikes my interest. But overall, I spend a lot of my free time on my phone, and so my screen time is waaayyyy up there. And this leads into the next question...

Do you think that you are giving technology the appropriate amount of time in your life, or do you think that technology is taking up too much time in your life?

    Chances are I give technology way too much of my free time. In fact, I know I do. So lets take a look at my screen time for the past week: An average of 5.5 hours per day. Thats nice.  

    According to Ried Health, "experts say adults should limit screen time outside of work to less than two hours per day." And I am almost tripling that. Yikes. Maybe I should set limits on apps. Because... last week I spent 12 hours on Pokemon Go, 4 and a half hours on Instagram, 3 and a half hours on Reddit, 3 hours on Fizz, and an hour and a half on Twitter/X. Counting the 2 and a half hours on Messages, that is a whopping 13 hours on Social activity apps, and 12 hours on games. My screen time is way too high, and that needs to change. 

Do you think technology is informing you and making you smarter, or do you think that technology might be misleading you and giving you unreliable information?

    A bit of both. I do believe that technology can inform me of important things. But also it can fill my mind with junk. I like to call it "doom scrolling", because in reality, thats what I can be doing. Am doing. Do. But that doesn't mean that technology does not inform you. It gives you near instant access to thousands of news sources and puzzles, as well as other things to train your brain. Technology can make you both smarter, but it can entrap you with "doomscrolling". Just be careful. 

Do you ever worry about these things, or do you think it's just an accepted part of the society we live in?

    In all honesty, technology is just a part of our everyday life at this point. It has its upsides, it has its downsides. As long as the individual can be careful about how long they are spending on their phones, or other technology, they should be alright. Don't get sucked in every too often, and view verified information. Technology is very helpful, and will be continuously evolving in our lives. 

The Progressive Era - Anti-War

Why do you think you have to seek out obscure websites in order to hear strong antiwar voices? That is an excellent question. I was exploring both Antiwar.com and theamericanconservative.com, and I was asked the question as to why you do not see topics like this in the mainstream media. One explanation would be that accounts that better serve the interests of the majority, or the dominant narrative, are frequently given priority in the media. This occasionally results in the marginalization or underrepresentation of opposing viewpoints, such as those that support the idea of an end to war. Alternative media platforms or obscure websites, like those previously mentioned, could provide a forum where people or groups with opposing ideas can openly express themselves without being censored by conventional editorial agendas. Furthermore, because their opinions are divisive or unpopular, some antiwar voices might not be heard through mainstream channels and instead be found in alternative or fringe contexts. The mainstream media outlets might prioritize certain stories or perspectives while downplaying or ignoring others. This can often be reflected by the biases of their owners or advertisers. This selective reporting will distort the public's perception of events in the world, and limit the diversity of voices heard.

Also, governments throughout history have recognized the power of controlling information and narratives in order to maintain authority and shape public opinion. In many cases, this control extends to what people see and hear through mainstream media channels, and these media sources are regulated as well. A government might censor information that they deem to be sensitive or threatening to their interests. This can involve outright suppression of dissenting voices, manipulation of facts, or even spreading propaganda to influence public perception. 

If sources on anti-war are evident and common in our society, it might even make it harder for the country to declare war if need be. Public criticism of a government, or any individual, is a strong and powerful thing.

Something ELSE I learned from an EOTO presentation

 So, I am sitting here in class, once again. Waiting to present my short topic on the Spiral of Silence Theory. And I am watching other groups present, as usual. So, what is a topic I learned about? Besides Brad talking about how he is an evil mastermind. This man Brad goes crazy with his presentations. This man has some wild ideas about the school, and he reveals their propaganda.

Online Influencers - Presented by Erica Williams

    Erica states the an online influencer is "a person who as become well-known through the use of the internet and social media, and uses celebrities to endorse, promote, or generate interest in specific produces, brands, etc., often for payment". These influencers are usually spokespeople for brands, and they help advertise it to consumers (us). 

    Erica states that influencers use six mechanisms: credibility, trustworthiness, attractiveness, expertise, popularity, and familiarity. Credibility and trustworthiness is the most important of these mechanisms.  

    Now, online influencers have lots of effects, that range from creating new job opportunities, to ruining the reputation of the brand and themselves, through their actions. They can spread awareness of things, but can also spread misinformation or disinformation that can help or hurt the general public. Erica believes that influencers have a positive impact on the world, but I do want to make sure I am thinking about how they affect me. Luckily for me, I don't follow any.

The Spiral of Silence

    What is the Spiral of Silence? To learn that, we must go back to Germany, 1974. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. She is the political scientist who created the Spiral of Silence Model. She believed that "an individuals willingness to express his or her opinion was a function of how he or she perceived public opinion." Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. So, to define the Spiral of Silence, it is a theory that states that "one's perception of the distribution of public opinion motivates one's willingness to express political opinions." Pluralistic Ignorance and the Spiral of Silence: A Formal Analysis

Beyond a simple definition, what are the implications? What might be good, what might be bad? How might it affect society as a whole? 

    The Spiral of Silence theory does come with implications on why people might remain silent when they feel that their views are in opposition. These implications are: 1) a fear of isolation when the group or public realizes that the individual has a divergent opinion from the status quo, and 2) a fear of reprisal or more extreme isolation, in the sense that voicing said opinion might lead to a negative consequence beyond that of mere isolation (loss of a job, status, etc.). Spiral of Silence - Mass Communication Theory

    This theory relies on the idea that people have some type of innate ability to discern what the most common opinion is in any particular circumstance. As a result of the minority feeling increasingly alienated from a space where they feel safe voicing their opinions and experiencing the previously mentioned anxieties, the spiral is then initiated or reinforced when someone in the assumed opinion majority speaks out confidently in favor of the majority opinion. 

    So in summary, people don't like to speak up about opinions that matter, because they are worried about being judged negatively. But that does not always have to be a bad thing. "in environments where public opinion leans toward tolerance, the spiral of silence can be a way of keeping hate out of public discourse" TheCut.com - The Spiral of Silence

How might the Spiral of Silence affect different segments differently — rich/poor, old/young, male/female, gay/straight, majority/minority?

    The Spiral of Silence explains why certain people stay silent about certain topics. But is there a limit to how far that goes? Will only the minority stay silent? Can the majority be silent? In recent years, it seems as if the LGBT+ community seems to be more verbal, while those who speak their opposing opinions are silent. This has empowered many within the LGBTQ+ community to speak out about their experiences, rights, and advocacy efforts, fostering an even more open and inclusive dialogue. But this can lead to the individuals who hold opposing views feeling increasingly marginalized or silenced. (Or are they just choosing not to speak on the topic?) This stems from the constantly changing social norms, possible backlash against discriminatory rhetoric, and efforts to promote LGBTQ+ rights and equality. The dynamic between the vocal LGBTQ+ community and those who hold opposing views can create challenges for meaningful dialogue and understanding. In some cases, individuals on both sides of the issue may be reluctant to engage in productive conversation, leading to polarization and further entrenchment of beliefs.

What can we do? Should anything be done?

    In my opinion, I believe that overcoming the Spiral of Silence requires an environment where all voices can feel valued and respected, regardless of their beliefs. Encouraging empathy, active listening, and open-mindedness can bridge the gap between conflicting viewpoints. Ultimately, navigating these challenges involves recognizing the complexities of identity, discourse, and social change within communities and even society at large. By promoting empathy, understanding, and inclusivity, we should be able to create spaces where diverse voices can contribute to meaningful conversations and collective progress, without the fear of isolation and reprisal.

THE AGE OF AI

    In the AGE of AI, what is going on? Can machines overtake human intelligence? What about Human jobs? Honestly in the long term, I am gonna say yes. Now an AI or computer that can teach itself? That might escalate things. Especially if it can write its own code. To me, a machine or AI that can teach itself, and predict outcomes, is actually terrifying. 

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS CHANGING OUR WORLD

We are in the early decades, of what is a multi-decade adjustment period. But the future is still now. But there is a big downside to this. According to the video I watched, there was a survey conducted that revealed that half of all Americans can not afford a sudden $400 expense. So what would they do, if they were laid off in exchange for a machine that can do their job flawlessly? In all honesty, I do not have an answer for this. And it scares me. 

    As a college student, I need a job. Just something to help me pay these massive bills. But what if everything is automated? Will I even be needed? Where could I work? If you go to a restaurant, and order food by clicking a button, and it is automatically brought to you, how would that make you feel? Sure, you might feel nice that you would not need to tip. But what happened to the wage slave who depended on you to help pay his grocery bill? His college fund? What would happen to society if we move into a fully automated system? The group at the top who designs and runs all the automations will have jobs. High paying ones at that. They will be making all the money in our world. But the middle and lower class who can't find jobs because it has all been replaced? They can't do anything. 

How private are we then? We are monitored. What does AI know on us? 

    I have had a post on how private my information actually is. Check that out here. Google and other big tech companies have so much information on us. But what about when AI is inserted into that? How fast can they go through every possible source with your name attached to it? Every photo, post, tweet, even your search history. Within seconds, it could provide a file with everything there is to know on you, just based on what it found online. And if it is affiliated with the company that owns your data, they might be able to access even more. No matter what we do, we leave behind digital traces of our behavior. To describe this in simple terms, Google searches us, not vice versa. We are FUCKED. We are not private, no matter how hard we try. I recon it could even guess what we are thinking about. 

Lets just hope we don't get SkyNet online. At least...not in my lifetime. 

Diffusion of Innovations

People who are interested in trying new technologies and establishing their utility in society "Everett Rogers argues that diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated thorough certain channels over time among the participants in a social system." Diffusion of Innovations - Wikipedia. Diffusion of Innovations is a hypothesis that aims to explain how, why, and how quickly new concepts and innovations develop.

A diagram I made

Now, a fascinating piece of technology is the smartphone. So, lets study it through the diffusion of innovations theory!

Why did smartphones catch on and spread?

    The smartphone is a useful piece of technology that combines multiple functions into a single device: that being calling, texting, internet browsing, and app of all sorts. This convergence of features made the smartphone highly attractive and convenient for users, leading to widespread adoption. 

Now that leads to the question: why did so many people become early adopters of the smartphone? 

    Early adopters are most often technologically savvy individuals (or nerds) who are eager to try out new innovations on the market. Or "people who are interested in trying new technologies and establishing their utility in society" - Investopedia - Diffusions of Innovations Theory For smartphones, early adopters most likely saw the potential that these devices had: increased connectivity, productivity, and even entertainment. 

Going back to the theory, why are some people late adopters, or not even adopters at all?

   It is highly likely that late adopters may be more cautious or resistant to change. They may prefer to stick with familiar technology, or simply be waiting until the price drops and the technology becomes more refined. Some people may even choose not to adopt smartphones due to concerns about privacy, security, or simply a preference for simpler devices. Although... how private are they really? Check out some of my other posts. 

What about the downsides to smartphones and their technology?

    Smartphones most definitely have downsides. Not only do they track your location, and other types of privacy, they have brought up concerns regarding addiction, distraction, and decreased face-to-face social interaction. They also contribute to issues like sleep disruption, cyberbullying, and information overload. While they might be very helpful, they are also rather harmful. So be careful with them. 

Something I Learned During an EOTO Presentation

 So, I am sitting here in class. Waiting to present my short topic on USB Flash Drives. And I am watching other groups present. So, what is a topic I learned about? Besides the fact that there is a kid named Brad who is a zoomer, has photos of his dad, and doesn't like newspapers. He also can't read German. I mean neither can I so...OMG WHY IS HE SHOWING ME A PICTURE OF BATMAN WITHOUT EARS! HOW IS THAT RELATED? Ok, lets get back on topic. 

THE WIRED AND WIRELESS TELEGRAPH - Presented By Elliot Baratto

    So Elliot is teaching us about the telegraph. He started off by showing us an absolute brick of a smartphone, made by the Energizer Battery topic. He wants to show us how we got here. So we went all the way back to the 1800's, where we learned about the creation of Morse Code. (It was created by Samuel F.B. Morse). So apparently, the telegraph was just an incredibly, INCREDIBLY long wire, that spread between two telegraphs. Samuel Morse had gotten Congress' help to get this built. He eventually sent the first message, via morse code on a telegraph: "what hath God wrought". 

    Eventually, Elliot moved on to teaching us about the Wireless Telegraph. Which apparently, requiers teh Electromagnetic Spectrum. It was theorized to exist by James Maxwell, and later discovered by Heinrich Hertz when he sent sparks from one side of the room to another. But way later, Guglielmo Marconi created the wireless telegraph, and filed a patent for the device. It still required morse code to communicate, as the human voice was not able to be registered on the Electromagnetic Spectrum. But for now, there was a wireless way of communicating long distances! Pretty impressive.