Final Post

Society's Relationship With Technology & Technology's Relationship With Us

For the last 3 million years, technology and society have had a really complicated, chaotic, and ever-evolving connection. On the one hand, technology has provided us with incredible tools that have fundamentally altered the way we work, live, and interact with others. It's so prevalent that it's hard to picture living without it because, for some people, technology is life.

But on the flip side, it’s brought along problems that we couldn’t have seen coming, and that makes me stop and think about whether this relationship is really as great as it seems. For me personally, my connection with technology is something I think about often, and honestly, I’ve got mixed feelings about it.

The FUTURAMA display from the 1964 World's Fair keeps coming to mind. It was all about this ideal, technologically advanced future in which creativity could fix any issue. Back then, people had a lot of hope for what technology could accomplish. And to be honest, much of that optimism still makes sense. Take a look at the internet, which is arguably one of the most amazing inventions ever made by humans. Imagine being able to obtain all the information you might need.

Additionally, cell phones like Android, Samsung, and iPhone models. In essence, they are portable, full-featured computers that fit in your pocket. It's incredible that I can potentially contact millions of people by setting up a blog in a matter of minutes or sending a message to someone on the other side of the globe. I'm reminded of how far we've gone and how much technology has enabled it by things like that.

However, everything is not sunshine and rainbows. We cannot overlook the darker side that exists alongside all the positive aspects. Before the internet and social media, for instance, there were no such things as "cyberbullying," "revenge porn," or "ghosting." They are now a part of daily existence. The idea of technology having unforeseen repercussions is unsettling. Consider the tragic increase in teen suicides in the United States, which raises the question of how much of it is related to the demands of social media and being "on" all the time. It seems like there is a hidden cost associated with every nice thing that technology offers us.

I would say that I have a rather mixed relationship with technology. I use technology to keep informed, stay in touch, and accomplish things, and on some days I feel like I've struck a healthy balance. On other days, though, instead of being in the present, I find myself reaching for my phone or continuously scrolling through social media. It feels like this ongoing fight between feeling in control of it and empowered by it. I occasionally question whether I'm truly in charge of my technology or if technology takes over too frequently.

Seeing how technology impacts my interactions with friends and family is also fascinating. On the one hand, it's invaluable for communicating with distant individuals. I adore being able to communicate with loved ones at any time and share special occasions. On the other side, I have observed that it can cause distance. How many times have you been in a crowd and everyone was riveted to their screens rather than interacting with one another? When you think about it, it's a bit dismal. I try to be more conscious of it since I've been guilty of it myself, and I don't want technology to interfere with my genuine human connections.

Another thing I’ve been thinking about is my online footprint. We all leave a trail, and it’s wild how much people can learn about you just by Googling your name. If a potential employer looked me up, what would they see? Is it a version of me that I’d be proud of, or are there things I need to clean up? It’s a weird thing to think about, but in today’s world, it’s super important. I know I need to be more intentional about what I share because once it’s out there, it’s out there for good.

At the end of the day, technology has a significant impact on society. Technology is here to stay. It really depends on how we use it because it's not all bad or all good. I think we should always be asking ourselves if we are using technology for the better or worse. Do we use technology as a tool to grow and connect, or do we let it take us away from what really matters? It takes effort and self-awareness to succeed, just like any other relationship. If we're willing to stand back and think about how we use technology, I think we can find a balance that lets us enjoy everything it has to offer without losing sight of what makes us human.

EOTO#2 Reaction

EOTO#2 Reaction: News Deserts in the United States

I was quite shocked to learn how widespread this problem has grown after listening to my classmate's presentation on news deserts in the US. I hadn't really thought about it before, but now I realize how important it is. Losing access to reliable local news doesn’t just mean missing out on what’s happening in your town; it’s about losing a vital connection to the community and a sense of accountability for local governments and organizations. Honestly, I hadn’t realized how much we depend on local news to keep things running smoothly in our communities.

The fact that more than 2,100 newspapers have closed since 2004 was one of the more startling things my classmate mentioned. How can people keep up with the things that are important to them on a daily basis without these sources? The amount of people who have been left without a local information source in entire cities and neighborhoods is crazy. It made me think about how important local news is for the tiny things we take for granted. For example, like keeping up with community activities, attending school board meetings, or even understanding new laws and policies that could have a direct impact on our lives.

The fact that this issue primarily affects rural towns truly caught my attention. The local newspaper is usually the only reliable source of news in small towns; when it disappears, residents are left to rely on national media, which simply ignores local problems. I considered how annoying it may be to feel cut off from your own community since no one is covering it anymore. My classmate brought up a great point regarding how this lack of local coverage results in lower civic involvement and voting. It makes sense: how can you make wise decisions if you don't know what's happening with your local leaders or community council? The entire community is weakened by this domino effect.

Digital media's role in all of this was another aspect of the presentation that truly resonated with me. Due to the dominance of platforms like Facebook and Google in the advertising market, small newspapers are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. The big firms have all the resources, and the smaller companies just cannot compete with them. According to my classmate, news quality and focus are changing even in urban areas where people have access to a wider variety of media. It's much worse in rural areas, where there are frequently no reliable news sources available.

I was really shocked by how important local news is after listening to these presentations. Since I grew up in a time where social media and the internet provided the majority of my news, I never gave local newspapers much thought. I now see that they serve as a means of creating and maintaining a cohesive community in addition to being a way of staying informed. Losing that would mean losing a piece of what contributes to the meaning of communities.

We all need to be more conscious of this issue, which is why I'm glad my classmate talked about it. It made me think about ways we can help local journalism, including buying local newspapers, giving money, or even supporting laws that keep smaller media companies around. I came away from the lecture feeling that we must find a way to reverse this trend before more towns become news deserts. It serves as a reminder to all of us to cherish and safeguard the resources that provide us with information and connections.

ANTIWAR

The arguments about war and dissent in the U.S. are just as relevant today as they were during the Progressive Era. Back then, people who opposed America’s involvement in World War I faced serious consequences, like being thrown in jail for their beliefs. While that level of punishment isn’t something we see today, I’ve noticed that antiwar voices still tend to get pushed aside.

The videos we watched really made me think about how dissenters were treated during World War I. The first video showed that even though the First Amendment is supposed to protect our freedom of speech, it wasn’t really there for people who were against the war. They were imprisoned and silenced. That caught my attention because it demonstrates how easily our rights can be violated when the nation is facing difficulties. It also made me ponder how likely it would be for anything similar to occur again.

In the second video, the focus shifted to the tension between the government and people who oppose its military actions. What’s crazy is that while today’s dissenters aren’t being jailed, their opinions still don’t get much attention in mainstream media. It's frustrating that we don’t hear more antiwar voices in the news, and it’s clear that these perspectives are often overlooked.

When I checked out websites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative, it became clear that these sites are filled with strong antiwar perspectives, but we rarely see them highlighted in major news outlets. It really got me thinking, why are these views so hard to find unless you go looking for them? It almost feels like mainstream media is more comfortable promoting narratives that align with certain political interests rather than giving a platform to dissenting voices.

This underrepresentation seriously limits our capacity to understand the big picture. By keeping antiwar voices out of the conversation, we are not given a full picture of the problems surrounding US military operations. We are also more likely to accept these interventions without giving them careful thought or without fully weighing any potential long-term effects if that critical attitude is not there.

The easiest approach to undermine opposition is one of the main lessons I learned from this. Our freedom to express ourselves is meant to be safeguarded by the First Amendment, but there are less evident ways in which this protection can be compromised, like when the media silences opponents of war. It doesn't follow that voices aren't being silenced in other ways just because people aren't being imprisoned for speaking up. Furthermore, if we are only hearing arguments from one side of the dispute, we will not fully understand the problems.

We can't just rely on the information provided by the mainstream media but also actively seek out alternative viewpoints. If we don't, we can miss out on significant opinions that could question the status quo and encourage us to consider war and its effects more carefully. Because of this, it's important that we pay attention to who is included and excluded. We might never fully understand warfare or the entire cost of American military interventions if we don't open up to a range of perspectives!

Diffusion

The Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) Theory, was founded by E.M. Rogers in 1962. DOI is the process by which an idea or product gradually gains traction in society. The theory helps us explain why some people adopt new technology quickly while others take a long time or occasionally refuse to adopt it at all. It goes beyond simply noting the apparent trend of new advancements. I find this theory especially intriguing because of how widely applicable it is. It can be used to describe the diffusion of everything from significant cultural movements to cutting-edge technological devices used today.

DOI focused on 5 major categories below.

1. Innovators: These are the people who are always the first to try something new. They’re often seen as risk-takers and adventurous, and they thrive on being at the front of change.

2. Early Adopters: This group tends to be made up of leaders or influencers who are open to change. They are not always the first in line, but they’re quick to embrace new ideas when they see the potential.

3. Early Majority: These individuals aren’t leaders in innovation, but they’re willing to adopt something new as long as it’s already proven to work for others. They need some reassurance before they take the jump into things.

4. Late Majority: This group is more skeptical and cautious. They typically wait until an innovation is widely accepted before they feel comfortable enough to give it a try themselves.

5. Laggards: These are the people who are most resistant to change. They’re often tied to tradition and only adopt something new when there’s no other option or when it’s forced on them by circumstances.

What really gets me about this theory is how perfectly it applies to so many things in our lives. For example, if you think about social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok, you can see how this process plays out in real life. The innovators are the people who signed up for these platforms before anyone even knew about them, just because they love trying new things. Then come the early adopters, the influencers who brought attention to the platforms and made them seem cool. The early majority followed soon after, once they saw their friends and peers using it successfully. The Late Majority only jumped in when it felt like everyone they knew was already on it, and finally, the Laggards either never joined or reluctantly made accounts just to stay connected with family or for work.

Another aspect of this theory that I like is how it’s not just about tech. It can also be applied to the spread of ideas. A great example of this is the women’s suffrage movement in the U.S., which eventually led to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. When you look at this historical milestone through the lens of Rogers’ theory, you can almost visualize the timeline of adoption. The innovators were the first few activists who began fighting for women’s rights long before it was a mainstream cause. The Early Adopters were the leaders in communities and political figures who began to support the movement. The Early Majority started to catch on as the movement gained traction, and the Late Majority finally came around as public opinion changed. The Laggards, however, were those who resisted the change and only accepted it once it was the law.

When thinking about any new innovation, whether it’s a tech gadget, a service, or an idea, it’s important to realize that different people have different adoption timelines. That’s one of the big takeaways from DOI. And not everyone embraces change at the same pace. It’s interesting to see how it takes time for an idea or product to gain traction and become part of the mainstream, and even more interesting to think about the different psychological and social reasons behind why people adopt or don’t adopt new things. For me, understanding this theory opens up new ways to think about how innovations spread, why certain technologies become part of our daily lives, and why others fade.

This theory is not only useful academically but also in real-world business and marketing strategies. When promoting a new product or idea, understanding which group I am trying to reach and how to appeal to their specific needs and hesitations can make a huge difference. Especially if I am dealing with risk-taking innovators or tradition-bound laggards, the way I approach each group has to be tailored to their mindset. The more I think about it, the more I see how DOI is everywhere, and it’s exciting to be able to apply it to so many different aspects of life.

EOTO REACTION

During the EOTO presentations, one specific topic got my attention, which was Netflix. This presentation really made me think about how much Netflix has changed the way we watch TV and movies. I’ve used Netflix for years without ever really stopping to consider how it all started or how it became such a big part of our lives. Netflix's impact and history went much deeper than I realized. 

Back in the day, we had Blockbuster and Redbox. I remember going to Blockbuster and hoping they still had a copy of the movie I wanted, and then Redbox came along with those DVD kiosks, which made things a little easier. But even then, there were still annoyances if a popular movie was sold out, you were out of luck, and those late fees for returning DVDs were the worst.

That’s where Netflix founders Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings saw an opportunity. Netflix founders created a service where you could order DVDs online and have them mailed to your home. When you were done, all we had to do was just send them back through the mail. The best part was that there were no late fees and no rush to return a movie. This simple idea was revolutionary back then, and it caught on quickly, earning Netflix around $42 million in its first year of streaming to the public. 

But what really changed the game was when Netflix introduced streaming in 2007. That’s when everything shifted. Suddenly, people didn’t have to wait for DVDs in the mail; they could watch movies and shows instantly on their computer and eventually on their TV or phone. Streaming transformed how we consume media, and Netflix was right at the forefront of that change. It also started creating its own original content, which has now become a huge part of why people subscribe.

What surprised me the most is how far Netflix has come since those early days. In recent times, Netflix has over 84 million paid subscribers and leads the streaming world as number 1. It’s crazy to think about how it went from mailing DVDs to dominating the entertainment industry, especially online. Netflix set the bar that all the other platforms like Hulu, Disney+, and HBO Max are trying to meet, which is pretty hard to beat.

The presentation made me realize just how fast things have changed over time. We went from physically going to the store to rent a movie to having an endless library of content right at our fingertips. It’s easy to take Netflix for granted, but hearing about its history made me appreciate just how much it’s shaped
the way we all watch TV and movies today. Netflix has really become the idol for many future streaming services.

I really appreciate the presenter for making Netflix's history so interesting and not just boring facts like some of the other EOTOs. I left with a completely different perspective on how Netflix got to where it is now, and I was astounded by how much the entertainment industry has evolved in such a short period. It was also very easy to take away something from a topic I understand, relate to, and use regularly. 

EOTO1 POST: History and Impact of A.I.

History: The Beginnings of AI

Artificial intelligence, or AI, has rapidly evolved from a futuristic concept to a key part of our everyday lives. But where did it all begin? The roots of AI are traced back to the mid-20th century. AI was brainstormed by early computer scientists who started imagining machines that could think like us, humans.

In a workshop at Dartmouth College in 1956, a group of scientists led by Claude Shannon, John McCarthy, and Marvin Minsky came up with the term "artificial intelligence." They thought that things requiring human intelligence, like learning and language comprehension, could be coded into machines. They believed making devices that could mimic human thought processes would revolutionize the world. However, their progress over time was sluggish. The technology available was restricted at the time. Although early AI systems were capable of basic tasks, they were not able to have the agility, flexibility, and comprehension of human intellect. 

Furthermore, the creation of expert systems software, which imitates the human decision-making process, allowed for AI research to accelerate in the middle of the 1980s. These systems were used in fields like medicine and finance to make recommendations or diagnose diseases. However, even though AI was advancing society, due to high costs and limited computing power, AI diminished again by the end of the decade.

The big breakthrough of AI came in the 21st century because of advancements in machine learning. This was driven by increased computing power and the amount of data gathered. AI began to achieve significant successes, like beating humans at complex games like chess and Go. AI was able to understand and generate human language, minor suggestions, and make more accurate predictions in various human subjects/categories.

By bettering diagnosis, customizing therapy, and even predicting patient outcomes, artificial intelligence has been able to transform the healthcare industry. AI systems, are now capable of analyzing medical images and detecting diseases like cancer, faster and with greater accuracy than human physicians. Through early disease detection and data-driven treatment recommendations, this technology holds the potential to save endless lives. As this area grew stronger for AI so did other categories. If you think back to 100 years ago, never would anyone imagine this would be possible.

Click Me!

As AI grows in the healthcare industry it also promotes innovation and growth in other industries. For example, in finance, AI is used to detect fraud, make trading decisions, and manage risk. In retail, AI helps businesses optimize inventory, predict customer behavior, and provide personalized shopping experiences. Also, it can improve consumer experiences in retail by predicting trends and managing inventory better.

Although AI has improved many different categories in society, there have been many complaints. AI is causing disruptions. AI is generating trouble because automation leads to job losses in areas where repetitive tasks are now performed by machines. This problem continues to rise in society as AI keeps growing. Not only are there disruptions in work, but AI also has a lot of ethical problems. Some of the big issues include data privacy, algorithmic prejudice, and AI being abused for military or spying purposes. To make sure that AI is being used properly, these ethical issues have to be addressed. As AI keeps developing, it needs to be governed just like any other major advancement in society.

The Future of A.I.

Many people focus too much on the negatives of artificial intelligence and don't realize the breakthrough AI is having and how it is changing our world. AI is continuing to solve complicated problems and creating new opportunities across a lot of industries, like entertainment, business, and healthcare. These industries are just some of the few big ones, AI touches nearly every industry whether it's positive or negative. It can be used to predict patient outcomes based on a lot of data and can identify family sickness in medical imaging. Artificial Intelligence drives virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa, personalizes Netflix and Spotify suggestions, and even helps in controlling smart home devices all of which are part of our daily lives. It's improving the convenience, effectiveness, and connectivity of our lives. However, even as we acknowledge AI's pros, we also need to be aware of its limitations and work toward a way for everyone to benefit from it and not be put out of work.

Artificial intelligence has quickly developed from a science fiction idea to a force that is revolutionizing our society. In 1956, researchers John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky first used the term "Artificial Intelligence" to describe their goal of building robots with human-like cognitive abilities. Due to expensive prices and limited processing capacity, early AI was primarily focused on problem-solving and language interpretation, and as explained development was sluggish. Now that sources are nearly unlimited, there is no clear picture of when A.I. will stop progressing. Those goals from Minsky and McCarthy have come true. This shows how much potential AI has since all it takes is time to keep developing.

Privacy, Online & Off

The theme this week is privacy, which, honestly, feels like one of the biggest challenges of our time. We've already talked about how much information we willingly share online, but what hit me after watching these TED talks is how companies like Facebook (and plenty of others) take that data and run with it. And that’s just scratching the surface of how bad companies like these are.

Technology is amazing until it’s used against us. When you realize your privacy has been breached, it’s pretty terrifying and upsetting. Nowadays, people, corporations, and even the government can invade our privacy whenever they want, 24/7, every day of the year. 

There were also a lot of issues within the TED lecture videos. The videos helped me realize how open we are to both government and social media monitoring. Our location and phone conversations are tracked, and all of that data is kept on file in case it turns out to be "useful" in the future. To be honest, that poses a crazy risk since it indicates that our privacy is being violated in every way. It is crazy to think that anytime and anywhere someone is recording your every message, phone call, or even in-person conversation with someone else.

Juan Enriquez, one of the presenters, discussed "electronic tattoos," and I was particularly struck by this idea. Basically, whatever we do on the internet, be it Facebook, Twitter, or even an app like a credit score checker, leaves a permanent trace. And now those "tattoos" are permanently linked to our identities thanks to technologies like facial recognition. That's a serious privacy concern, but considering that this data might outlive us, it's also a bit unsettling. 

Catherine Crump brought up how the government is using mass surveillance to gather info on all of us, even tracking vehicles to get a sense of who they think we are and whether we're a threat. It's insane to think that the police hold onto all this data, just waiting for the day it becomes "useful." They even track our phones to know where we are when we’re not driving. This feels like a serious violation of civil liberties because innocent people are being monitored constantly, without their knowledge.

Then Christopher Soghoian pointed out something I hadn’t thought about before: not only do phone companies and networks have access to all our data, but governments, hackers, and even stalkers can get in on it, too. The worst thing is that we are powerless to restrict who has access to these networks. Also, there have even been cases of foreign governments breaking into Microsoft and Google accounts, which leads to numerous conflicts like fraud, stealing, and bribing.

These TED talks were, to put it bluntly, eye-opening. As a result, I realized how important it is to restrict the amount of information I reveal online. The idea that I'm being followed even when I'm not online is just unsettling. When I come forward and tell my loved ones about the scope of government surveillance, I will undoubtedly proceed with extra caution. There needs to be a limit to the government's power because there is for sure no checks and balances regarding this topic.