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.