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. 

Post #5: Why are Antiwar Sentiments Silenced?

As our lesson on the Progressive Era showed, silencing antiwar voices is nothing new, especially in the U.S. As explained in MTSU's First Amendment Encyclopedia, limits of free speech during wartime date back to the Revolutionary War and the passage of the Sedition Act of 1789, which made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous, or malicious writing" against the government. More recently, the U.S. Patriot Act limited First Amendment freedoms in the name of combatting terrorism. Such limitations on free speech are not limited to America, either. Similar examples of wartime censorship can be found throughout the world and throughout history. Given this long history, it should come as no surprise that strong antiwar voices are often viewed as a taboo by the average person. The same can be said of any viewpoint that society has deemed "extreme". As any sociology student can tell you, humans want to maintain a sense of social order, which is why punishment befalls those whose ideas go too far against the grain. 

On the other hand, war and conflict are detrimental to the citizens of conflict zones. According to Amrita Rathi of Columbia University, "War adversely affects combatants and non-combatants alike..." She explains that death, injury, sexual violence, and illness are among the most physically threatening effects of war. Meanwhile, PTSD, depression, and anxiety are some of the emotional dangers of violence. Therefore, it is also not shocking that so many people hold antiwar sentiments. Moreover, it would not be entirely fair to say that mainstream media rejects these ideas all together. After all, a number of the articles featured on antiwar.com come from mainstream news sources, like MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, Yahoo News, and the Associated Press. While these sources may not be calling out officials to the degree that the blogs we have looked at do, they also do not remain completely silent on controversial issues. As we have seen with other movements in the past, such as the recent Black Lives Matter protests, mainstream media coverage tends to ramp up when an event occurs that generates a lot of buzz. At the end of the day, news organizations are businesses, so they generally follow the stories that will be the most profitable. 

Ultimately, when it comes to the government's reaction to extreme and/or opposing views, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, it is not okay for governments to change or bend the rules when it is convenient for them, as they have done with free speech protections in times of war. Yet, on a human, sociological level, I understand why governments, more specifically the individuals that make up those governments, choose to behave the way they do towards dissent. Dissent is perceived as a threat to societal stability, so, regardless of the reality of the situation, we (society and governments) do what we think will have the best cost/benefit ratio for maintaining peace among dissenters without destabilizing the social order we know and desire. 

Post # 4 (EOTO): History of the Motion Picture

 

The Motion Picture Camera

Ironically, the history of the motion picture is a story fit for the big screen. Before we delve into this history, however, let's start by defining what a motion picture is. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a motion picture is a "series of still photographs on film, projected in rapid succession onto a screen by means of light... this gives the illusion of actual, smooth, and continuous movement." 

While the basic mechanisms that allow for the illusion of moving pictures date back to the early 1800s, the history of motion pictures largely starts in the 1870s with Eadweard Muybridge. Between 1872 and 1877, Muybridge worked to develop series photography in an effort to prove that there is a point during a horse's gallop at which all four hooves leave the ground. To do this, Muybridge set up several cameras along a racetrack to take a series of pictures as a horse ran. He then mounted these still images onto a rotating disk that projected them through a magic lantern. The results of his efforts can be seen above. In subsequent years, a number of inventors worked to improve series photography.

Then, in the late 1880s, French inventor Louis Le Prince invented the first motion picture camera (see below). In 1886, Le Prince applied for a U.S. patent on his 16-lens camera design, which was then granted in 1888. That same year, Le Prince developed a single-lens motion picture camera that featured a parallax view-finder. The date of this latter invention is corroborated by one of the short films Le Prince shot with it, which features a woman who died ten days after its filming in October 1888. Louis Le Prince was set to debut his creation in New York in 1890, but the inventor mysteriously disappeared before the exhibition could occur. 

If you are surprised to hear that Le Prince invented the first motion picture camera, you aren't alone. For decades, Thomas Edison and his assistant William Kennedy Dickson were credited with the invention of the motion picture camera. In reality, Edison and Dickson did not begin working on their camera until 1888 -- two years after Le Prince first applied for his U.S. patent. Their invention combined the technology required to record and view a movie into one machine. This kinetograph was created using the escapement mechanism of a clock and was capable of imprinting up to 50 feet of celluloid film at a rate of 40 frames per second. To accompany of the kinetograph, Edison and his company also developed the kinetoscope (a device to view films) and a kinetograph studio where films could be shot. 

Edison's Kinetoscope

By 1895, the Lumière Brothers optimized the filmmaking process with their cinématographe. This device served as a camera to capture images, a printer to put those pictures on film, and a projector that could flip through these images at a rate of 16 frames per second. Unlike Edison's inventions, the cinématographe was relatively portable, which contributed to its success as the first commercially-viable film projector.

Milestones in the Film Industry

One of the biggest milestones in film history was the release of the film The Birth of a Nation in 1915. Despite the controversy that has long surrounded the film, it is recognized as the first Blockbuster motion picture and is credited with starting the era of the modern motion picture. Notably, the editing, composition, and complexity of the shots in this film helped give credit to motion pictures as an art form. 

Later, in 1922, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (now known as the Motion Picture Association) was created. This same year, the MPPDA established the Hays Code. Named for the organization's founder, William Hays, the Hays Code was a regulatory system intended to prevent "offensive material" in film and, in doing so, avoid government interference in the film industry. Though the Hays Code was eventually repealed in 1968, the stigmas it reinforced regarding the depiction of topics like interracial couples and LGBTQ+ individuals still have a lasting impact today. 

Finally, in 1926, Warner Brothers Studios experimented with the integration of sound in film. Though Edison and subsequent inventors created technologies that were capable of integrating sound with film, it was not until the success of the Warner Brothers' experiment that the practice became popular. Until this point, major studios had been skeptical about the notion of "talking pictures". Then, Warner Brothers released a synchronized musical accompaniment to the costume drama Don Juan to much audience acclaim. Within several years, the inclusion of music and other sound became a standard across the film industry.

Ultimately, in the years since its inception, the motion picture has become incredibly influential in society. Throughout the 20th century, film was used for everything from propaganda to documentation to art. As is the case with many inventions, there are those who exploit the medium of film to cause harm in society. Yet, without the invention of the motion picture, we would not have some of our most popular means of mass communication today, such as television and online video content. For this reason, I believe the creation of the motion picture was one of the most revolutionary innovations in communication of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.