Blog Post 11: Final Post

When we think about the future, we often imagine a world where technology makes life easier, solves our problems, and removes struggle. That was the vision of the 1964 World’s Fair and its Futurama exhibit, which promised a utopian future shaped by innovation. Decades later, it’s clear that technology has given us incredible advantages, but it has also created unexpected consequences that continue to reshape the world in ways we didn’t anticipate.

The internet is undeniably one of humanity’s greatest achievements. The ability to access unlimited knowledge at any time is something past generations couldn’t have imagined. It allows instant global communication, connects people across distances, and provides opportunities that never existed before. In many ways, technology has enriched our lives. It has allowed for the creation of new industries, made education more accessible, and helped solve problems ranging from medical advancements to environmental tracking.

But alongside these benefits come issues we are still struggling to understand. Before the internet, no one thought about cyberbullying. Before social media, no one worried about revenge porn, ghosting, or online harassment. The tools that bring us together can also drive us apart. Suicide rates among young people have risen in the age of social media, and studies link excessive screen time with mental health struggles. We celebrate technology for keeping us connected, yet many people feel lonelier than ever before.

It raises an important question: are we in control of technology, or is it controlling us?

For many, including myself, the relationship with technology is complicated. It’s a necessity in everyday life, keeping us informed, entertained, and connected. But it also demands more of our attention than we sometimes realize. Hours disappear into scrolling, switching between apps, and consuming information that isn’t always meaningful. Social media has trained us to seek validation through likes, comments, and shares, reinforcing behaviors that keep us coming back for more.

There are times when technology feels like it’s improving life, like when it’s used for learning, communication, or convenience. But there are also moments when it becomes overwhelming—when the constant stream of notifications, opinions, and curated realities makes it feel impossible to disconnect. Comparison becomes unavoidable. Seeing only the highlights of others' lives can make people feel as if they are falling behind, even when they aren’t.

It’s not just an individual issue. Technology has reshaped relationships in ways that aren’t always for the better. Communication is easier, yet face-to-face interactions seem to be declining. It’s common to see a group of people sitting together, each absorbed in their phone instead of engaging with each other. Texting replaces real conversations. Social media allows people to stay in touch but also makes it easy to avoid deeper connections. It blurs the line between meaningful relationships and surface-level interactions.

The impact of technology also extends into personal and professional identities. Everything we do online leaves a footprint, one that employers, schools, and even strangers can access. If someone Googled me right now, what would they find? Would it reflect the person I want to be? Most people don’t think about their digital presence until it’s too late. What we post, comment on, and share today might still be searchable years from now. Even deleted content can resurface. The reality of a permanent digital history is something that everyone should consider, yet many don’t until it affects them directly.

So, is technology good or bad? It’s neither. It’s both. It’s what we make it. The real concern isn’t about whether technology should exist, it’s about how we use it and whether we’re being mindful of its effects. There’s no denying that it makes life more convenient, but the constant presence of technology has also created new problems.

Striking a balance is difficult but necessary. Instead of blindly accepting whatever technology offers, it’s important to set boundaries and question whether it’s truly adding value. Small changes, like limiting screen time, curating online spaces to include diverse perspectives, and stepping away from the constant noise of social media, can make a difference. More awareness is needed about how digital spaces are designed to keep users engaged, often at the expense of their well-being.

Technology isn’t inherently good or evil. It’s a tool, one that can be used to improve lives or to create distractions and harm. The challenge is learning to manage it rather than letting it manage us. It’s up to individuals and society as a whole to recognize its influence and decide how to shape the relationship going forward. 

Blog Post 9: EOTO 2 Reaction

One of the most eye-opening presentations during EOTO 2 focused on gatekeeping and echo chambers, two concepts that play a huge role in shaping the way we consume information. The internet is often thought of as a place where everyone has a voice, but in reality, much of what we see is filtered, sometimes in ways we don’t even notice.

The discussion on gatekeeping really made me reconsider how much influence a small group of people, and even algorithms, have over the information that reaches us. Traditionally, gatekeepers were journalists, editors, and media executives who decided what was considered important news. Today, that role has expanded to include social media platforms, algorithms, and influencers, all of whom determine what content is promoted and what gets buried.

A great example the team brought up was how platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter use algorithms to decide which posts gain traction. While these systems are designed to keep us engaged, they don’t always highlight the most important stories, they prioritize whatever generates the most clicks, shares, and ad revenue. In some cases, this means corporate or political interests influence what information gets the most visibility, whether we realize it or not. It’s unsettling to think about how much of the online world is curated for us, rather than being an open exchange of ideas.

Another major takeaway was the idea of echo chambers, where people mostly engage with content that aligns with their existing beliefs. Social media platforms encourage this by showing us posts that reflect what we already like, making it easy to stay within a bubble of similar viewpoints.

This got me thinking about how two people can have completely different perceptions of the same event. If someone only follows conservative news, their understanding of an issue will be drastically different from someone who primarily consumes liberal media. This divide isn’t just about politics, it applies to topics like science, health, and even pop culture.

One of the examples the team gave was the COVID-19 pandemic, where social media created extremely polarized echo chambers. People who distrusted the government mainly saw content reinforcing their skepticism, while those who supported strict regulations rarely encountered opposing views. Instead of fostering discussion, these echo chambers made it easier for each side to dismiss the other entirely.

Another interesting point the team made was about online influencers as modern gatekeepers. Unlike traditional media figures, influencers don’t always have formal training in journalism or ethics, yet they shape public opinion just as much, if not more, than news outlets. Whether it’s a beauty YouTuber, a TikTok commentator, or a political streamer, these figures build massive followings and hold significant power over what people believe.

The team highlighted how influencers often feed into echo chambers by telling their audience exactly what they want to hear. If an influencer builds their brand on challenging mainstream narratives, they’re unlikely to present balanced viewpoints, doing so could alienate their followers. This reinforces existing biases and makes it even harder for people to step outside their digital bubbles.

This presentation really made me reflect on how much of my own online experience is shaped by gatekeeping and echo chambers. The internet was supposed to create more access to diverse perspectives, but in many ways, it has just introduced new types of gatekeepers, social media companies, algorithms, and influencers who control the flow of information.

So, how do we avoid getting trapped in this cycle? The team emphasized the importance of actively seeking out different perspectives, questioning our sources, and being aware of how platforms shape our online experiences. Instead of passively accepting whatever content is pushed our way, we need to make a conscious effort to engage with opposing viewpoints and challenge our own biases.

This presentation changed the way I think about my media consumption. Moving forward, I’ll be paying closer attention to who controls the content I see, and making sure I’m not just stuck in a loop of the same ideas.

Blog Post 10: Antiwar

Now that we’re wrapping up the Media Law portion of this course, I keep coming back to one big question: How much has really changed when it comes to free speech and war?

In the Progressive Era, speaking out against war could literally land you in jail. The U.S. government cracked down hard on antiwar activists during World War I, tossing hundreds of them behind bars just for voicing their opposition. You’d think that kind of blatant suppression is a thing of the past, right? But after exploring Antiwar.com and The American Conservative, I’m not so sure.

These sites are packed with strong antiwar opinions, yet I’d never even heard of them before this assignment. And that got me thinking, why do we have to search for antiwar perspectives? It’s not like the U.S. has stopped waging military operations. So why aren’t these voices more visible?

The answer probably has a lot to do with how mainstream media works. There’s an unspoken rule that certain topics get more airtime than others. War, especially when framed as a necessity or a patriotic duty, drives engagement. It fuels headlines, political debates, and big-budget coverage. Meanwhile, questioning U.S. military involvement too aggressively? That tends to get buried or dismissed as "radical."

When you turn on the news, you’ll see experts debating military strategy, politicians discussing defense budgets, and breaking coverage of conflicts around the world. But how often do you see a primetime guest arguing that the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in any of these wars at all? Those perspectives exist, but you have to dig through independent websites and smaller publications to find them. And that’s exactly the problem.

One of the biggest justifications for free speech in the U.S. is the “marketplace of ideas” concept, the belief that the best arguments will naturally rise to the top. But that only works if all ideas actually get a fair shot.

During WWI, the government openly suppressed antiwar voices by jailing them under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. That was obvious censorship. Today, the suppression is more subtle. Instead of throwing people in prison, certain perspectives just don’t make it into mainstream conversations at all. It’s not that antiwar arguments don’t exist, it’s that they rarely get the same exposure as pro-military viewpoints.

So, is that really much better than outright censorship? Sure, the government isn’t kicking down doors and arresting people for antiwar speech anymore, but if major media outlets systematically ignore those perspectives, the end result is almost the same. The public only hears one side of the debate, and anyone who disagrees is pushed to the margins.

This raises a bigger question: Who decides which perspectives get heard and which don’t? Mainstream media plays a huge role in shaping public opinion, but media corporations aren’t neutral observers. They have financial and political interests that influence their coverage.

Think about it, major news networks are owned by massive corporations with deep ties to industries that benefit from war, like defense contractors and government agencies. The military-industrial complex is real, and it’s not just about weapons manufacturers, it’s also about the media narratives that justify endless conflict. War coverage brings in viewers, and viewers bring in ad revenue. Meanwhile, peace isn’t exactly profitable.

It’s no surprise, then, that antiwar voices get pushed to independent outlets like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative. These sites challenge the dominant narratives about U.S. foreign policy, which makes them inconvenient for mainstream networks. If something doesn’t fit the standard political script, it’s easier to ignore it than to give it airtime.

The First Amendment protects free speech from government censorship, but it doesn’t guarantee anyone a platform. This is where things get tricky, because while the government isn’t legally silencing antiwar voices, the media landscape effectively does it for them. If certain viewpoints are consistently excluded from mainstream discussions, does free speech even function the way it’s supposed to?

It’s not just about legal rights, it’s about access to public discourse. If people don’t even know that strong antiwar perspectives exist because they never see them on TV or in major newspapers, then the so-called “marketplace of ideas” isn’t really open. It’s curated.

Looking back at history, it’s clear that war and free speech have always had a complicated relationship. The Progressive Era showed us what happens when the government decides which opinions are acceptable. Today, we see how public discourse can still be controlled, not through laws, but through media narratives and information gatekeeping.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect unpopular speech. But if we have to hunt for voices that challenge war, maybe that’s a sign we should be asking bigger questions about who controls the conversation in the first place.

Blog Post 4: Privacy Ted Talks

     Privacy has always been a fundamental part of human life, but in the digital age, it feels like an increasingly fragile concept. The TED Talks I watched this week shed light on just how much of our personal information is being collected, stored, and used, often without us even realizing it. These videos were both eye-opening and unsettling, making me question how much control we truly have over our own data.

    In Juan Enriquez’s TED Talk, he compared our online presence to a tattoo, something that stays with us forever, even if we try to erase it. This analogy struck me because it’s true; every post, comment, or photo we share leaves a digital footprint. Even when we think we’ve deleted something, it often lingers in backups, archives, or screenshots. What’s most concerning is how these digital records can be used against us, whether it’s by potential employers, colleges, or even governments. The permanence of our online actions means that one mistake or misinterpreted post can have long-term consequences. It made me reflect on my own social media habits and how often we post without considering the long-term impact.

    Even more alarming was Catherine Crump’s talk about the ways law enforcement quietly tracks our movements. She explained how police departments across the U.S. use automated license plate readers to monitor and store location data on millions of drivers, whether they are suspected of a crime or not. What’s shocking is that many people have no idea this is happening. It raises serious concerns about mass surveillance and the potential for abuse. If the government can track where we go, how long we stay, and who we visit, what does that mean for personal freedom? It’s not just a privacy issue, it’s a civil rights issue.

    Christopher Soghoian’s TED Talk took this discussion even further by exposing just how vulnerable our cell phones make us. He highlighted how government agencies and even private companies can easily access our calls, messages, and location data without our knowledge. One of the most surprising takeaways was how major tech companies have different levels of security based on their priorities, while Apple has implemented strong encryption, many phone carriers still leave users exposed to surveillance. Soghoian’s talk reinforced just how little control we have over our digital privacy, and how much depends on decisions made by corporations that may not have our best interests in mind.

    These concerns don’t just affect me, they impact all of us. My friends and family probably don’t think much about how much data they share online or how often they’re being tracked in real life. But after watching these talks, I realize how important it is to start having these conversations. We need to be more cautious about what we post, where we go, and who has access to our information.

    So, what should be done about this? On a governmental level, I believe stricter data protection laws are necessary. People should have the right to control their own information, whether that means having the ability to delete old data or limit how long companies and law enforcement can store it. Transparency is also crucial, citizens should be fully aware of how their data is being collected and used.

    On a personal level, there are steps we can take to protect ourselves. Using stronger privacy settings, being mindful of what we post, and limiting location tracking on our devices are good starting points. After Soghoian’s talk, I’m also considering switching to encrypted messaging apps and being more aware of which tech companies prioritize user privacy. Awareness is key, the more we understand about how our data is used, the better equipped we are to protect it.

    These TED Talks were a powerful reminder that privacy is not something we can take for granted. In a world where technology makes it easier than ever to collect, store, and exploit personal data, we need to be more vigilant than ever. The question is no longer whether our information is being tracked, it’s what we’re going to do about it.

Blog Post 7: EOTO 1 Reaction

    Listening to my classmates’ Each One Teach One presentations this week gave me a lot to think about. It’s easy to go about our daily lives using modern technology without really considering how it all started or the impact it has. The presentations covered a variety of topics, from the origins of motion pictures to AI-generated images and the rise of Google, each shedding light on how media and technology shape the way we communicate, learn, and even perceive reality.

    One of the most interesting topics was motion pictures. We’re so used to watching movies and videos that we rarely stop to think about how they actually work. It was fascinating to learn that early motion pictures were simply a series of still images played in rapid succession—just six frames per second—to create the illusion of movement. What struck me the most was how powerful visual storytelling has always been, not just for entertainment but also for shaping public opinion. Whether it’s old propaganda films, news footage, or social media videos today, the ability to influence people through moving images has only grown stronger over time.

    Another presentation that caught my attention was about AI image generation. The fact that you can type in a few words and an AI will create an image in seconds is both exciting and kind of unsettling. While it’s an incredible tool for creativity, it also raises some tricky ethical questions. For instance, who really owns AI-generated art? If an AI mimics an artist’s style, is that fair or is it stealing? And then there’s the issue of misinformation—realistic AI-generated images could easily be used to manipulate people. It made me think about how important it is to be able to distinguish between real and AI-created content, especially as this technology keeps advancing.

    Another engaging presentation focused on Google and how it evolved from its original name, "BackRub," in 1996 to the global powerhouse it is today. It’s crazy to think about how different life would be without Google—getting information used to take hours of searching through books or asking experts, and now we can find answers in seconds. But the presentation also made me reflect on how much we rely on it. Google controls what information we see first, and its algorithms influence everything from news to shopping choices. While it’s made life easier in so many ways, it also brings up concerns about privacy, bias, and just how much control one company has over the internet.

    Overall, these presentations reminded me how much media and technology have evolved and how deeply they impact our daily lives. Each innovation—whether it’s film, AI, or search engines—has changed the way we consume and share information. But with each advancement comes new challenges, especially in terms of ethics and regulation. It made me realize how important it is to not only understand these technologies but also to question and think critically about them. As media keeps evolving, staying informed and aware will be more important than ever.

Blog Post 8: EOTO 2 Post, Net Neutrality

    Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all internet traffic equally, without discriminating against or favoring certain websites, services, or applications. This concept ensures that all users have unrestricted access to information, innovation thrives, and no single entity can control what content reaches consumers. However, the debate surrounding net neutrality is far from simple, with significant implications for society, businesses, and individuals alike.

    Net neutrality plays a crucial role in protecting free speech and democracy. It prevents ISPs from censoring or slowing access to particular viewpoints or platforms. Without it, ISPs could throttle political content they disagree with or charge extra for access to independent news sources. This principle safeguards democracy by ensuring equal access to information, vital for political engagement and public discourse.

    Additionally, net neutrality encourages innovation and competition. Startups and small businesses rely on an open internet to compete with established corporations. Without net neutrality, ISPs could create a "pay-to-play" system where only companies that can afford premium access get their content delivered at full speed, stifling innovation and favoring monopolies.

    Another advantage is equal access for all users. Net neutrality ensures that everyone, regardless of income or location, has the same level of access to online education, job opportunities, and government services. If ISPs introduce tiered pricing, lower-income individuals may be forced into slow, limited-access plans, exacerbating the digital divide.

    One argument against net neutrality is that it discourages ISPs from investing in network infrastructure. If they can't charge more for high-bandwidth services, they may lack the incentive to expand and improve broadband networks, particularly in rural areas.

    Critics also warn that strict net neutrality regulations could invite excessive government oversight. Some fear that regulating ISPs could lead to unintended consequences, such as stifling new business models or limiting how companies optimize network performance.

    Net Neutrality affects different people in different ways. The end of net neutrality could create a "fast lane" for those who can afford it and a "slow lane" for everyone else, making high-quality internet access a privilege rather than a right.Younger individuals who depend on streaming, gaming, and social media would feel the impact of slower or more expensive access. Older generations, who primarily use the internet for news and communication, might not notice as drastic a change. Small businesses and startups would struggle to gain traction if ISPs prioritize major corporations willing to pay for better service.

    For students and young professionals, net neutrality is essential. The ability to access educational materials, apply for jobs, and communicate freely should not be hindered by additional costs or restricted bandwidth. A free and open internet fosters innovation, creativity, and opportunity for all.Net neutrality is more than just a technical issue—it’s a battle for digital equality. The internet has revolutionized access to knowledge, democracy, and commerce. Without net neutrality, ISPs could shape the internet to benefit their financial interests rather than the public good. The fight for an open internet is ongoing, and the decisions made today will impact generations to come.

    Net neutrality is more than just a technical issue—it’s a battle for digital equality. The internet has revolutionized access to knowledge, democracy, and commerce. Without net neutrality, ISPs could shape the internet to benefit their financial interests rather than the public good. The fight for an open internet is ongoing, and the decisions made today will impact generations to come.

Sources:

ACM Library

The Journal of Industrial Economics

Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives

Science Direct

Medium

Blog Post 5: Living in the Age of AI

    Living in the age of AI introduces unique challenges and new experiences across every industry. AI affects not only careers and jobs but also the way we obtain and use information. It has sparked conversations surrounding misinformation, identity theft, national security, and content moderation. The documentary In the Age of AI explores these themes, weighing the pros and cons of artificial intelligence. As AI continues to evolve, concerns about online privacy and social media become increasingly urgent.

The second hour of the documentary delves into the data collection practices of social media companies. These platforms track user behavior, including what content is viewed and liked, to tailor individual experiences. While this personalization can enhance user engagement, it also raises red flags. A key concern is: where does this data go? Many users are unaware of how their personal data is stored, shared, or sold. The documentary highlights that even with privacy agreements in place, most users blindly accept terms without reading them, unknowingly consenting to extensive data tracking.

Another major topic covered in the documentary is misinformation. AI-driven algorithms prioritize engagement, which can result in the spread of misleading or polarizing content. This raises ethical concerns regarding the responsibility of tech companies in managing information accuracy. While AI can moderate content, it is not infallible—controversial posts slip through while legitimate ones are sometimes removed. This issue is particularly concerning for younger generations who may struggle to differentiate between factual information and AI-generated distortions.

A surprising and unsettling takeaway from the documentary was the impact of AI on employment, particularly for women. Many jobs at risk of automation, such as cashier roles, clerical positions, and human resources, are overrepresented by women. This realization was personal to me, as I have worked in HR throughout college. Recognizing AI's growing influence, I have shifted my focus toward coding and AI algorithms to remain competitive in the job market.

Despite these concerns, AI offers significant advantages. It plays a crucial role in fraud detection, national defense, and improving sectors such as healthcare, education, and accessibility. However, as AI becomes more integrated into daily life, ethical dilemmas surrounding privacy and security must be addressed. Stronger regulations, public awareness, and responsible AI development are necessary to strike a balance between technological advancement and safeguarding fundamental rights.