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.

Blog Post 6: EOTO The First Newspaper in 1844 and its Impact on Communication

The 19th century was a defining era for journalism, and 1844 marked a turning point in the history of newspapers. Before this time, news was mostly reserved for the wealthy, with papers costing around six cents per issue—an expense that made them inaccessible to the working class. However, the introduction of the penny press completely transformed how people consumed news, making information more accessible and shaping modern journalism as we know it.

The penny press was pioneered by newspaper publishers like Benjamin Day, who founded The New York Sun in 1833, and James Gordon Bennett Sr., who launched The New York Herald in 1835. Their goal was simple: make newspapers affordable for the everyday person. By lowering the price to just one cent per copy, they were able to reach a much wider audience. But this wasn’t just about cost—these newspapers also introduced a new style of reporting that focused on human-interest stories, crime reports, and sensational headlines that grabbed attention. 

Another major factor in the success of the penny press was the steam-powered printing press. This technological advancement allowed publishers to print thousands of copies quickly and at a low cost, making mass distribution possible for the first time.

Before the penny press, newspapers were mostly political tools, controlled by parties or wealthy elites who used them to push their own agendas. They weren’t designed for the everyday reader, and they often required subscriptions that most working-class people couldn’t afford.

The penny press changed this dynamic by prioritizing stories that mattered to regular people—not just politicians and business owners. For the first time, newspapers reported on crime, scandals, human-interest pieces, and even entertainment. This shift allowed a much larger portion of the population to stay informed and engaged with current events. It also sparked a new demand for objective reporting, since penny press papers were sold individually rather than through long-term political subscriptions.

                                         

The rise of the penny press fundamentally changed how people consumed information and communicated with each other. Here’s how:

News Became Instant – With mass production and growing urban populations, newspapers could be printed and distributed quickly, allowing people to learn about events almost as they happened.

Greater Political Awareness – The affordability of newspapers meant that more people could engage with politics, forming opinions and participating in discussions that were once reserved for the elite.

Public Opinion Gained Power – Newspapers became a tool for activism, covering social issues like abolition, labor rights, and corruption in ways that helped push for change.

Advertising Changed – The rise of mass-distributed newspapers meant businesses could reach wider audiences through print ads, laying the foundation for modern advertising.

   

Not everything about the penny press was positive. Because publishers relied on high sales numbers to stay in business, they sometimes sacrificed accuracy for attention-grabbing headlines. This led to the rise of sensationalism, or what later became known as yellow journalism. In many cases, stories were exaggerated or even completely fabricated to increase circulation.

This trend sparked debates about media responsibility and journalistic ethics, which are still relevant today. How much of the news should be focused on truth versus entertainment? At what point does a catchy headline cross the line into misinformation? These are the same questions being asked in today’s digital media landscape, where clickbait and fake news run rampant. 

The impact of newspapers from 1844 is still visible in modern media. Just as the penny press democratized access to news, the internet, and social media have done the same in the 21st century. However, both eras face similar challenges, including sensationalism, misinformation, and corporate influence over journalism.

The core principles introduced by the penny press—affordable, accessible, and engaging news—set the foundation for today’s media industry. Whether through traditional print newspapers or digital news outlets, the idea that news should be widely available to all social classes remains a lasting legacy of the penny press era.

Newspapers in 1844 weren’t just a product of technological innovation—they represented a massive cultural and societal shift. By making news accessible, engaging, and relevant to the working class, they reshaped public discourse and set the foundation for modern journalism.

While we’ve come a long way from one-cent newspapers, the struggles of the penny press era—such as sensationalism and media ethics—are still challenges we face today. Understanding where journalism came from helps us appreciate its role in shaping society and reminds us why truth in media still matters.

Sources:

ThoughtCo Penny Press

U of Illinois Source

The Origins of Modern News Media Source

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism

Oxford Bibliographies

NY Books

Steam Powered Printing Press

Blog Post 3: 8 Values of Free Expression

As a Native American from the Monacan tribe in Virginia, the value of Protect Dissent resonates deeply with me. My grandmother and her mother before her endured incredible hardships throughout their lives. They were silenced, marginalized, and stripped of their voices simply because of their heritage. Their experiences remind me of the immense power and importance of dissent—of standing up, speaking out, and fighting for the right to exist and be heard, even in the face of overwhelming adversity.

For much of history, Native Americans were denied the ability to express themselves freely. My great-grandmother’s generation lived through an era when the government sought to erase Indigenous cultures through forced assimilation, boarding schools, and systemic oppression. Speaking the Monacan language, practicing our traditions, or even identifying as Native was met with harsh punishment. Their dissent—their refusal to disappear—was seen as a threat to those in power. Yet it was this very dissent that ensured the survival of our culture, our history, and our identity.

The First Amendment’s protection of dissent is not just theoretical; it is a lifeline for those who have historically been silenced. It is a reminder that every voice, no matter how small or unpopular, deserves to be heard. 

The value of Protect Dissent is inseparable from Native history. For centuries, Indigenous peoples across America have fought against the systemic erasure of their cultures and communities. Even now, Native voices are often drowned out in mainstream conversations. Yet platforms like social media have become a modern tool for dissent, allowing tribes like the Monacan people to share their stories, advocate for land rights, and educate others about our history.

One example that comes to mind is the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The protests at Standing Rock, which drew global attention in 2016, showcased how dissent can spark a movement. Indigenous leaders and allies stood together, using their voices to protest the environmental and cultural harm posed by the pipeline. The movement gained traction through social media platforms, amplifying their message and drawing widespread support. Despite the challenges, the protests were a powerful reminder that dissent can create real change—even when it faces enormous resistance.

While Protect Dissent resonates most with me, the Marketplace of Ideas also feels incredibly important. My grandmother often spoke about the value of sharing stories—not just within our tribe, but with others outside of it. She believed that understanding could only come from dialogue, from a willingness to listen and learn from one another.

Today, social media platforms serve as a digital marketplace of ideas, where people from all backgrounds can share their stories. For the Monacan people, this has meant creating spaces where we can share our history, educate others about our traditions, and push back against harmful stereotypes. While these platforms are not perfect—misinformation and hate still exist—they have given us a powerful tool to assert our identity and challenge misconceptions.

For example, the Monacan Nation has used its online presence to advocate for the preservation of sacred sites, like Rassawek, our historic capital. Developers once sought to build over this site, threatening its cultural and historical significance. Through online campaigns and public advocacy, the Monacan people were able to share the importance of Rassawek with a broader audience, ultimately leading to the site’s protection. This is the marketplace of ideas in action—a space where truth and understanding can prevail when allowed to grapple with opposing views.

The Eight Values of Free Expression are the foundation of our ability to speak, act, and live freely. For me Protect Dissent and the Marketplace of Ideas are the most personal and powerful. They remind me of my grandmother’s resilience, of the struggles and triumphs of the Monacan people, and of the ongoing fight for justice and recognition.

Through these values, I see a future where the voices of Indigenous people are not only heard but celebrated. A future where dissent is recognized as a vital force for change, where ideas are allowed to thrive, and where tolerance and understanding replace ignorance. As a member of the Monacan tribe, I carry this vision forward, knowing that the freedoms we have today were hard-won by those who came before us.

Blog Post 2: History & Workings of the U.S. Supreme Court

1. One thing I learned about the Supreme Court that I did not know before is the concept of the "three bedrock principles" that guide constitutional interpretation. Among these, the second principle particularly stood out to me: the First Amendment does not serve as a shield against laws of general applicability. This concept was new to me and significantly expanded my understanding of how constitutional rights are balanced with the rule of law.

A law of general applicability refers to a law that is content-neutral and applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or personal circumstances. What I found especially intriguing was the example used to explain this principle, which involved traffic laws. For instance, a person cannot run a red light and then claim that their religion permits or requires them to do so as a defense. The Supreme Court recognizes that while the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, it does not exempt individuals from following laws that are designed to ensure public safety or serve a broader societal purpose and are not targeted at any specific group or belief system.

This principle underscores the delicate balance the Court must maintain between safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that universally applied laws function as intended to promote order and equality. It was enlightening to realize that constitutional rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and must sometimes yield to laws that serve the common good. Before learning about this, I assumed that the First Amendment provided a broader, almost unlimited protection for religious practices. However, this principle clarified that even fundamental rights must coexist within the framework of laws that apply to everyone.

This insight deepened my appreciation for the complexity of the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution and highlighted how these principles help ensure fairness and uniformity in the application of laws. It was fascinating to see how these ideas play out in real-life scenarios and how they guide the Court’s decisions in balancing individual freedoms with societal needs.

2. The most important takeaway I gained about the Supreme Court from these videos is the strict and nuanced manner in which the Court interprets and enforces the First Amendment. This stood out to me because it highlighted how meticulously the justices balance individual freedoms with societal responsibilities, ensuring that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are upheld without compromising the broader rule of law. I gained a deeper appreciation for the extent to which the First Amendment has shaped our legal system and continues to influence the way we navigate complex issues in modern society.

What resonated most with me was how the Supreme Court protects these fundamental rights while simultaneously placing reasonable limits to ensure they are not misused. For example, the Court has consistently upheld that freedom of speech does not protect actions like inciting violence, spreading false statements that harm others (such as defamation), or engaging in speech that directly threatens public safety. These limitations underscore the balance the Court must maintain between protecting individual liberties and preserving public order.

Another realization was how much of our current legal framework still draws from the principles established in the Bill of Rights. While these rights were drafted over two centuries ago, their application remains highly relevant today. The Supreme Court’s interpretations continue to guide how we address pressing contemporary issues, from freedom of religion to the regulation of digital speech. This made me reflect on how often we take these rights for granted and how much effort goes into ensuring they are protected in an ever-evolving society.

Ultimately, my biggest takeaway is a newfound respect for the enduring significance of the Bill of Rights and the vital role the Supreme Court plays in safeguarding these freedoms. It gave me a deeper understanding of how legal precedents set by the Court have not only shaped our history but also continue to influence our lives every day. The videos emphasized that the work of the Supreme Court is not just about deciding legal disputes but also about upholding the core principles that define and protect the very essence of democracy.

3. The most surprising thing I learned is that freedom of the press under the First Amendment is not exclusive to professional journalists but applies equally to all individuals. This was particularly eye-opening because it means that anyone who writes blogs, posts on social media, or shares information publicly is afforded the same protections as traditional journalists. The idea that we, as individuals, are empowered by the same legal safeguards when we communicate information to the public truly highlights the inclusive nature of this fundamental right.

I had always assumed that freedom of the press was a privilege granted specifically to members of the media, such as reporters or news organizations. However, this principle makes it clear that the First Amendment protects all of us when we participate in public discourse. Whether we are writing a blog, posting on a platform like Twitter, or even commenting on current events in a Facebook post, we are exercising the same freedoms that allow journalists to investigate and report on issues. This broad application of press freedoms emphasizes the role that all citizens play in contributing to a free and open exchange of ideas in a democratic society.

This was surprising to me because it reframes the way I think about communication and accountability in the digital age. It reminded me of how much power individuals now have to share information and influence public opinion, as well as how those actions are protected under the law. Learning this has given me a new appreciation for the responsibilities that come with such freedoms and the importance of using them thoughtfully and responsibly. It also highlights the evolving relevance of the First Amendment in the modern world, where digital platforms allow every voice to be heard.

4. The video changed the way I view the Supreme Court by highlighting just how far we have come as a nation over the decades while still staying rooted in the principles established by the Founding Fathers. I didn’t fully realize the extent to which the Court has adapted to modern challenges while continuing to uphold the core values enshrined in the Constitution. It gave me a new appreciation for how the Court has remained committed to protecting First Amendment rights, ensuring that freedoms like speech, religion, and the press are preserved even as society evolves.

What stood out to me is how the Supreme Court consistently returns to the same fundamental principles that were established at the country’s founding. These guiding principles have been the foundation for decisions in cases that address new and complex issues, such as digital communication and social media, that the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated. It’s incredible to see how these early ideals have not only stood the test of time but also provided a framework for navigating a constantly changing world.

These videos deepened my respect for the Court’s ability to strike a balance between staying true to the Constitution and interpreting it in ways that remain relevant today. It showed me how much work goes into ensuring that our rights are protected while adapting to societal progress. I now see the Supreme Court not just as an institution enforcing laws, but more like a guardian of democracy, carefully upholding the rights and freedoms that define our nation.