Final Post: Our Relationship with Technology

 

Like many relationships, my relationship with technology is a complex one. I use technology to educate myself, connect with friends, and stay up to date on current events. However, I can also admit that I probably spend too much time on my electronics, and technology can become a source of anxiety. Of all the things I do with technology, I spend the most time consuming media, like YouTube videos, podcasts, TV shows, or audiobooks. Personally, these forms of entertainment have always served as my way to escape everyday stresses. While I do spend a lot of time consuming this media, I am also fortunately capable of listening to one thing while doing another without losing the immersion of the experience. As a result, I can use this technology to make boring activities, like cleaning or washing dishes, an enjoyable experience that isn't a source of dread. That said, the same forms of entertainment can become a problem when I need to be able to focus on a single activity. I'm sure we've all said "Just on more episode...", then one turns into two turns into half a season. Unfortunately, my sources of stress relief can also became the cause of my anxiety when I realize I've procrastinated the other work I have to do. 

Based on my observations, I believe my relationship to technology is quite similar to that of my friends and family. In our daily lives, technology is a bit of a double-edged sword. I think most people can agree that it would be almost impossible to function efficiently in today's world without utilizing some technology. Indeed, my friends and I rely heavily on the Internet to complete school work, conduct research, and find entertainment. Likewise, my parents depend on technology in their jobs, especially since both of them work on teams with people based in different parts of the world. In this regard, technology is a wonderful tool that allows people to broaden their perspectives, educate themselves, and communicate with a diverse group of people.

That said, technology certainly takes its toll. As suggested in the Moby video, some would argue that technology has taken over our lives. In my own life and the lives of those around me, I can certainly say that this claim is not unfounded. Whether it's video games, television, or social media, most people I know overindulge in at least one form of technology. Naturally, overindulging in technology has ripple effects. For example, people may feel unproductive because they spend so much time consuming media via technology. In turn, these feelings of unproductiveness may impact mental health as a whole, such as triggering feelings of anxiety or depression. 

On a societal level, technology can have much broader impacts on general health. While it is true that technological advancements are allowing for great strides to be made in many industries, including medicine and mental health, research has also linked technology use negative health effects. For instance, the use of social media and mobile devices can cause strain on the eyes, difficulty focusing, sleep problems, issues associated with a sedentary lifestyle, and a host of mental health issues. These issues associated with technology overuse are particularly troubling when it comes to children, who may also suffer a variety of developmental delays. 

Ultimately, our relationship(s) with technology are incredibly nuanced. On one hand, technology permits us to do and learn a lot very efficiently. On the other hand, an argument can be made that technology has made us a lazier society, and it undoubtedly has adverse health consequences. The issue becomes even more complex when you try to consider what life would be like if we didn't have the technology that is available to us today. To part, I leave you with this question: how can you work to improve your own relationship with technology?

Post #11: The Age of AI

As with any technology, artificial intelligence has the potential to be hugely beneficial to society, but it is also an innovation ripe for exploitation. Among the benefits of AI are consumer convenience it can create, improvements in medicine, and safer work environments. As explained in the video, AI technologies like facial recognition software are already being employed around the world to change the consumer experience. For example, Apple Pay and similar systems allow users to make purchases using a mobile device that scans their faces to approve the payment. Moreover, companies can utilize AI-based algorithms to learn a lot about their consumer bases. Naturally, this also has benefits and drawbacks, but it certainly has the potential to optimize the consumer experience. 

In my opinion, the most important benefit of AI technologies comes in the form of medical advancements. Because AI is "data-driven" and based on pattern recognition, there are hopes that it can be used to streamline the diagnostic and treatment processes. In the documentary, Dr. Connie Lehman explains that these technologies could be particularly useful in the detection of cancers, like breast cancer. Since early detection is key in being able to effectively treat most cancers, AI would serve as an incredibly powerful tool in recognizing abnormalities before a human might be capable of registering such changes. The same capabilities could also be put to use in the lab, where AI can be used to help run and analyze experiments. Thus, incorporating AI technology into the medical field could save lives and hasten the rate at which innovations occur.  

The final area in which artificial intelligence has already begun to make significant changes is in the workplace. In particular, the transportation and manufacturing industries are seeing operational shifts because of AI. On one hand, using technologies like self-driving vehicles and AI-operated machinery can make these industries safer. In the trucking industry, for instance, the use of self-driving vehicles would undoubtedly reduce the risk of injury resulting from human error. Likewise, the use of AI-operated machinery in factories reduces the need to expose humans to potentially dangerous substances or hazardous parts of the production process. 

On the other hand, however, these changes are not entirely beneficial to workers in these industries. After all, the introduction of AI reduces the need for human labor, which results in a lowered demand for blue-collar workers. Consequently, many people who previously found work in these industries will find themselves without work or needing to transfer their skills into other industries. Moreover, AI technologies are increasingly being exploited by companies and governments to keep tabs on everyday citizens. One particularly concerning use of AI has been China's use of AI and facial recognition technologies to support their "social credit" system. Under this system, AI is used to track the movements and online activities of Chinese citizens. This information is then used to assign individuals a social credit score, which can either come with benefits or punishments. Regardless of the intent behind this system, most can agree that the constant tracking of of citizens, both in public and in private, constitutes an invasion of privacy. Finally, as these technologies advance, we must consider the risks posed by cybersecurity attacks that have the potential to expose much of the confidential data that can be discerned using AI. Ultimately, I am of the belief that AI technology can be used for immense good in society, but a significant risk-benefit analysis must be performed before such technologies become the norm. 

Post #10: EOTO2 Response

 

As a whole, I found the terms and concepts discussed in this set of presentations to be incredibly interesting. Personally, I was intrigued by the psychology behind concepts like the "echo chamber", the Illusory Truth Effect, and confirmation bias. Naturally, the way we communicate in society is dictated by our psychology, but that can have a troubling effect when examined at the sociological level. Echo chambers, confirmation bias, and the Illusory Truth Effect have become especially relevant in today's heated political landscape. 

Whether intentional or not, all of these concepts influence peoples' opinions. In some cases, human psychology is manipulated to maintain one's beliefs and actions. For example, social media companies, like Facebook, often use algorithms that generate echo chambers as a means of increasing user engagement. While the term "echo chamber" is often used in political contexts, the same basic principle applies to other topics, as well. In today's tech-heavy environment, ads are often tailored to appeal to an individual's interests. This helps to solidify consumers' opinions regarding the appeal or quality of certain goods and services. 

The psychology of the echo chamber is heavily related to confirmation bias. Though the exact reason for confirmation bias is unknown, scientists believe it may be an evolutionary tactic to make cognitive processing more efficient. Thus, humans will naturally seek out information that supports the beliefs they already hold. Think about it...you probably get frustrated, upset, and stressed if you start seeing loads of posts or information that contradicts your own beliefs -- I certainly do. Therefore, it only makes sense that companies seeking to retain their consumer base use confirmation bias to keep people happy, even if the cost is a more polarized society. 

Finally, both echo chambers and confirmation bias can result in the phenomenon known as the Illusory Truth Effect. Simply put, the Illusory Truth Effect explains that people will start to believe information after repeated exposure, whether or not it is true. In the context of current events, the Illusory Truth Effect is particularly troubling in its implications for the spread of misinformation and fake news, even when such information seems illogical. There are many real-world examples in which the Illusory Truth Effect is cause for concern. Obviously, tactics like political propaganda are made more effective by this effect. Another realm where the effects of this phenomenon are felt is in the criminal justice system. As explained here by Dr. Saul Kassin, some people will falsely confess to a crime they did not commit after being subjected to intense interrogation while in a vulnerable state of mind. As a result, the person comes to believe that they are guilty, despite prior convictions to the contrary. Ultimately, I find the psychology of human belief to be fascinating, but I think the consequences of its exploitation can be devastating to society.

Post #9: Diffusion Theory and YouTube

Over the last 17 years, YouTube has emerged as one of the top video streaming platforms in the world. YouTube was created in February 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim as a platform where people could share their "home videos". The platform quickly became a success. During its Beta stages, YouTube was used to post everything from video dating profiles to wedding videos to advertisements. Even before its official launch to the public, YouTube had received a $3.5 million investment from an investment firm after one of its partners, who previously worked with YouTube's cofounders at PayPal, used the site to share old wedding and honeymoon videos. At the time of its public launch in December 2005, YouTube was receiving 8 million views each day. Soon, the platform caught the attention of Google, who had recently failed in the launch of their own video-sharing platform. In October 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65 billion. The following year, "Charlie Bit my Finger" became one of the first YouTube videos to go viral. Though the original video has now been deleted from the platform, viral videos like it brought YouTube as a platform into the mainstream.

With the platform's success came a new phenomenon: the YouTuber. In December 2007, YouTube released its "Partner Program" which allowed creators to make money on their content. Around the same time, the company was also expanding its use of advertising as a source of revenue by offering sponsored videos and pre-roll ads as options for monetization. In 2009, YouTube teamed up with a media company to create the Vevo service, which is licensed to distribute music videos. YouTube seems to have entered its peak era in the early 2010s, when it began allowing people to live stream events, saw the emergence of some of its most popular creators (including PewDiePie), and launched a series of "YouTube Spaces" where creators could go to make content. 

YouTube entered its Late Adopters phase around 2015, when it launched services geared towards children (YouTube Kids), gamers (YouTube Gaming), and paying subscribers (YouTube Red/Premium). Around 2017, the platform began to enter a decline, in large part because of changes to its algorithm and advertising systems that resulted in the so-called "Adpocalypse". In the years since, YouTube has faced a variety of controversies ranging from inappropriate behavior by its top creators to privacy breaches by the company itself. Likewise, a number of top YouTubers who found success during the platform's peak have since left to pursue other ventures and to escape the stress of such a fast-paced environment as the Internet. 

Ultimately, I think people jumped on the YouTube train because it presented a novel way to connect with people. In its early days, the platform served as a way to share content between a small group of people that likely new each other. But it quickly grew into a platform to connect with people from around the world, both as a creator and as a viewer. As more people joined, the platform benefited from a wealth of content that could appeal to everyone. In addition to having videos for any interest, "how-to" style videos also grew in popularity, which YouTube a practical platform as well as an entertaining one. However, the growing struggles faced by the company demonstrate its negative side, particularly when it comes to inappropriate content. Because YouTube features content for all audiences, it can be easy for children to find content that they should not be exposed to. Despite policies intended to regulate inappropriate and/or illegal content, plenty of videos slip through the cracks. This, in turn, has much broader implications for society as a whole. Like with any technology, YouTube has a variety of benefits and pitfalls, but it is up to the individual consumer to determine what they are and are not willing to support.

Post #8 (EOTO): Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all Internet traffic equally. In other words, ISPs should not deliberately speed up or slow down access to certain websites or services. While the term "net neutrality" was not coined until 2002, the basic principle of network neutrality dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the Federal Communications Commission placed regulations on phone companies to prevent them from undermining their competition in the emerging computer networking market. As the Internet developed, the government started debating how they could protect consumers while also promoting market innovation. As a result, the FCC's policies regarding network neutrality have shifted depending on the politics of presidential administrations. In 2005, under President Bush, the FCC enacted a policy that would prohibit ISPs from blocking certain types of content or preventing consumers from connecting the devices they want to the Internet; this policy was overturned in 2008 when a federal court determined that the FCC did not have the authority to enforce its 2005 policy. Another attempt at net neutrality was made in 2010 by the Obama Administration. In May 2010, the FCC passed regulations that would prevent ISPs from blocking websites or placing limits on consumers. Once again, the regulations were struck down by a federal appeals court in 2014. In subsequent years, the FCC tried to establish strong net neutrality regulations, but they were rolled back by President Trump in 2018.

Network neutrality is a relatively popular policy, with support from roughly 80% of Americans. Among the strongest arguments in favor of strong net neutrality protections is the argument that spurs online innovation by keeping the barriers for entry low. Supporters argue that, without net neutrality protections, existing ISPs would sabotage services that could pose a competitive threat. For example, an ISP that owns a streaming service might intentionally slow down or degrade the streaming capacity of competing services. Moreover, without net neutrality, supporters worry that ISPs will begin charging fees to customers to maintain the same level of service. As the image shows, ISPs could charge premiums to other corporations and consumers to benefit from optimal service. 

Despite the apparent benefits of net neutrality, it does have its critics. One common argument against net neutrality is that it would discourage existing networks from innovating their services. For instance, strict net neutrality rules would prevent ISPs from experimenting with services that would allow latency-prone websites or applications, like online games, to pay a premium for their services to be given priority. Such services could provide better experiences for the consumer, but it is also possible that the additional costs associated with these premiums would be placed onto the consumer. Another common counterargument against net neutrality is that it is simply too difficult to craft clear and effective laws that remain relevant in a world of ever-changing technology. While it is true that technology is continuously evolving, it is also important to recognize that many current Internet regulations stem from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore, I think that, regardless of complexity, we need to start establishing rules for the technology of today. After all, not addressing an issue just because it feels too complex is not a real solution to the base problem. 

In the years since net neutrality was repealed, we have already seen some of the issues that can arise when ISPs have the ability to change their pricing without actually changing their service. Most notably, shortly after protections were lifted, Verizon slowed Internet access for the Santa Clara Fire Department as they were battling what was, at the time, the largest wildfire in California's history. The issue was only resolved once the department agreed to switch to a new, more expensive subscription plan. Though Verizon claims the issue was a customer service issue rather than a net neutrality issue, Santa Clara County officials argue that this case exemplifies that ISPs are most likely to work towards their own economic interests, even at the cost of public safety. This point was furthered when several large mobile carriers were found to have sold precise geolocation data of customers to data brokers. In this case, part of the privacy rules that the FCC would have adopted under a new net neutrality policy would require consumers to opt-in to the collection of this sensitive data, rather than making it the default. Clearly, the repeal of net neutrality has broad implications for society at large. 

Ultimately, any system that would permit companies to up-charge for equal access to Internet services is going to create inequality. Obviously, people of a lower economic class and those with less disposable income will not be able to access the Internet in the same way that people who are capable of paying premiums could, which has further implications when it comes to having equal access to online information. Initially, we are unlikely to see a major difference in costs because companies will likely start by implementing small fees at different increments. However, over time and across services, these costs will build. Thus, I believe that preserving network neutrality is a crucial step that must be taken to protect consumers online from being exploited by large ISPs. 

Post #7: Privacy in the Digital Age

Since the early days of the Internet, consumer privacy has been a topic of concern. Initially, much of the conversations seemed to be centered around how we can make online transactions as secure as possible. However, the growth of the Internet has also opened a new profit mine for corporations: selling the personal data of consumers. Unfortunately, this business model seems to appear on almost any website you visit, with many requiring users to agree to terms of service and/or some type of privacy policy. Simply put, it is nearly impossible to avoid online data collection unless you go completely off-the-grid. Naturally, this issue impacts almost everyone (certainly everyone in the developed world). After all, as discussed in the TedTalk we watched, even if you are personally very careful with your data, new technologies allow government agencies to keep tabs on you without your knowledge using as little data as a license plate number. Yet, the issue of privacy in the digital age is so complex that no single party can offer a complete solution.

In my personal life, I try to be aware of the information I give out online, but I also have to use the Internet everyday for school. In doing so, I increase the likelihood that my data is being collected and sold. Generally, I think I am more careful about online privacy than most people my age as a result of growing up with two parents who work in IT, with one who often works in conjunction with cybersecurity. I find that anytime I reflect on the issues of cybersecurity and online privacy I feel daunted by the sheer magnitude of the problem. As a consumer, I know that I should be aware of what data I allow companies to access, so I try to only grant access to the bare minimum requirements to use a product/service and make myself aware of the agreements I am entering. However, when it comes to things like tracking search history and targeted advertising, I tend to feel much more helpless. Because it just isn't realistic to stop using the Internet and smart technology, I find that I have to compartmentalize my concerns regarding online privacy, lest they become all-consuming anxieties that inhibit my ability to function without worry. 

As far as solutions go, I think the only solutions to the issues surrounding online privacy will require action by individual consumers, governments, and corporations. First, consumers must make smart decisions online. We must be aware of the products we are using, what information we give them access to, and what that information can be used for. That said, it is imperative that government regulations catch up with technology. For example, one major issue where the law needs to catch up to technology in order to protect consumers is "revenge porn". Because there are not yet clear legal standards for dealing with harassment, stalking, threats, and the non-consensual posting of private images, victims of crimes perpetrated online often struggle to obtain justice. In these cases, the government could set clear laws dictating a process for dealing with cybercrime. Beyond crime, governments should also set stronger regulations for what Internet companies can and cannot do with users' personal information. Finally, I think corporations need to step up and take responsibility for protecting their consumers. Though it may contradict the current online business model that is built on the invasion of privacy, corporations need to commit themselves to protecting data by stopping the sale of information to third parties. Ultimately, we, as a society, have a long way to go when it comes to protecting our personal information online, but changes at the individual, government, and corporate levels can lead us to a more secure future.

Post #6 (EOTO Response): The Carrier Pigeon

Though it sounds silly, the carrier pigeon was a revolutionary innovation in long-distance communication. Dating back several centuries B.C.E., these birds have been used for millennia to send messages over distances. In many ways, pigeon mail served as a precursor to today's postal systems, as extensive carrier pigeon networks were set up in many places as a means of easing communication. Perhaps more significantly, carrier pigeons quickly became a popular means of military communication. Not only did their use increase the rate at which messages could be conveyed over long distances, but the aerial nature of carrier pigeons would have also reduced the chances of a message being intercepted by land troops. In fact, this means of communication was so effective that carrier pigeons were still being used to transmit messages during the World Wars. Personally, I find it fascinating that something that is often viewed jokingly has been so influential in history. I was particularly surprised to learn just how recently carrier pigeons were in use. The last "pigeon post" center did not close until the early 2000s in India, as the internet mitigated the need for such a system. Even today, carrier pigeons are still used to smuggle messages into restricted areas. 

While carrier pigeons have undoubtedly benefitted society throughout the years, it is also clear that their use has had unintended consequences. Naturally, anything used for military communication also bears some level of responsibility for the carnage caused by military ventures, especially war. Today, some people still abuse the phenomenal abilities of these birds. Aside from bringing information to restricted areas, carrier pigeons have also been used to smuggle goods, including drugs. Ultimately, despite the negative consequences that have resulted from the use of carrier pigeons, I believe they have played an incredibly important role both in the history of communication and in the history of the world.