Final Post: The Toll of Technology

It is interesting how society's needs change over time. The FUTURAMA video claimed that technology would solve all of our problems. While technology has helped us in many ways, it has also left many of us feeling empty. Throughout the social distancing process, technology has been very useful. I have been able to communicate with my professors, family members, and friends. I have loved watching movies with my parents and talking to my sister through FaceTime. Technology has been a blessing, but it has not been the best part of my time at home. The chaos and heartbreak in the world is devastating, but I have enjoyed being forced to take a step back and appreciate the little things in life.

Everyday, I see children playing outside and families going on walks. I love being able to step outside and just enjoy the sun. Technology can sometimes distract us from these simple pleasures. We are so busy staring at a screen that we forget to look at the beautiful world around us. In the Mad World video, the majority of the characters never looked up from their phone. While this video was meant to be a bit of an exaggeration, it is true in many ways. Whenever I walk into a classroom, almost everyone is on their phones. People (myself included) avoid making eye contact and choose to stare at their screens instead.

Technology can take a horrible toll on relationships. I find it incredibly frustrating when I am telling someone a story, and he or she is too busy texting to pay attention. Something about it is just so insulting. It is as if people care more about their phones than the conversation. I think that most of us are guilty of tuning people out, but technology exacerbates the problem. It is as if we are prisoners trapped to our phones.

When we are glued to a screen, it is easy for us to become more self-conscious. Personally, most of my screen time is spend scrolling through Instagram. Doing this naturally leads to comparisons. We may compare our appearances, friends, or lifestyles to those around us. While some comparison would occur without technology, our cell phones make it easier for us to see the best images of someone else's life. This can lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-deprecation. Recent studies have emphasized social media's connection to low self-esteem. Researchers at Penn State University found that those who viewed other people's selfies were more likely to have low self-esteem than those who did not look at others' selfies. Those who viewed the selfies were likely to compare themselves to the manipulated images that they had seen of other people.

Technology is not evil, but it should not have a dominant role in peoples' lives. I have been trying to cut back on my own technology use but have been struggling. Hopefully, I will have more success this summer!

Thank you for all of your work this semester and have a great summer!

Check out this article from BBC on the effects of social media!

Here is an article on how social media can encourage people to feel jealous, unattractive, and lonely

Ted Talk Thoughts

I found the Ted Talk by Darieth Chisolm particularly interesting. Chisolm discussed the dangers and legal status of revenge porn. I was especially dismayed by the large number of people who are victims of revenge porn. According to Chisolm, one in 25 women are impacted by revenge porn. The whole idea of revenge porn is incredibly disturbing, but this video really got me thinking about the girls and women who send explicit photos to their partners.

During my freshman year of college, one of my friends sent revealing photos to a guy whom she was communicating with through Snapchat. He had asked for the photos, and I don't think she wanted to disappoint him. They only talked for a few weeks, and then their very brief relationship ended. Luckily, he has never done anything with the photos, but the situation is still heartbreaking. My friend had low self-esteem at the time, and I think that her actions were partially motivated by a low sense of self-worth. It makes me incredibly sad to think about how many people struggle to feel like they are worthy of genuine love and affection. In a healthy relationship, neither partner should feel pressured to send explicit content.

While women are the primary victims of revenge porn, it is important to mention that they are not the only ones affected. Men have also had their personal content posted, but it is far less common. Studies have shown that women under the age of 30, members of the LBGTQ community, and other minority groups are the most likely to be impacted by revenge porn.

Check out this Business Insider article on the prevalence of Revenge Porn

Do Stay at Home Orders Limit Religious Freedom?

The world has changed since the emergence of COVID-19. Many Americans are facing stay at home orders amid the chaos. Across the country, people are being told that they should only travel if it is absolutely necessary. Non-essential businesses are expected to close. What constitutes a non-essential business varies across states and cities. In several states, including North Carolina, places of worship are not allowed to host large gatherings of people. Some churches have switched to online worship services, while others have tried to hold drive-in style services where church members drive to a common meeting place and worship while staying in their cars. Several of these drive-in services have been broken up by police. Some people claim that the government should not be able to force churches and other houses of worship to close. Others say that the government has the right to limit church activities during these unprecedented times.

This is a very difficult situation. I am a Christian and understand the longing to go to church, but we should not put people's health at risk. Morally, I think that churches should close. They need to protect their congregations and the people with whom their church members interact. However, it is tricky to determine the role that the state should play in the closures. I can understand why churches cannot meet in person, but I don't think that there should be as many restrictions on drive-in worship services. As long as the people remain in their cars and keep a safe distance, I don't see why the government should interfere.

This is an interesting article on travel restrictions in the United States

Check out this Miami Herald article on COVID-19 and the freedom of religion

This article defines an "essential" business

Here is Gov. Cooper's executive order concerning essential businesses

EOTO 2: The Illusory Truth Effect

I read about the illusory truth effect in one of my classes last semester and found it fascinating! The illusory truth effect theory claims that the more we hear certain information, the more likely we are to believe that the information is true. We experience positive feelings when we hear something that we know to be true. Studies have shown that we experience the same positive feelings when we hear information that we have been exposed to repeatedly. In 1977, the theory was first introduced through a Temple University research paper written by Dr. Lynn Hasher and her associates. Since then, it has come to play a vital role in various industries. The illusory truth effect is especially prevalent in the political world.

We are constantly hearing about "fake news" and the negative effects that it can have on politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties. If "fake news" stories can be so ridiculously false, why is it that so many of us believe them? Following the 2016 presidential election, the idea of "fake news" gained national attention. In response, researchers at Yale University sought to demonstrate how the illusory truth effect can help make "fake news" more believable.

The researchers showed people an assortment of headlines from Facebook. Some of the headlines were true, while others were false. The researchers varied the number of times that people were exposed to the headlines; some headlines were shown to the people once and others were shown twice. Half of the headlines favored Republican viewpoints and the other half were tailored to fit Democratic views. These ads were chosen to protect against political bias. The participants were asked about their own political opinions, so that the researchers could determine if political affiliation impacted the results of the study.

The researchers found that people were more likely to believe the true headlines than they were the false ones. However, the illusory effect still appeared to influence participants. People were more likely to believe a true or false headline, if they were exposed to the headline multiple times. The researchers also found that political affiliation did not play a role in the study's results. If participants had repeated exposure to a headline, they were more likely to find the statement true, regardless of political affiliation.

I find the whole idea of the illusory truth effect rather frightening. It is startling to consider the ways in which this effect can be abused. The term "fake news" has been used so frequently, that I fear people have forgotten just how dangerous it can be. What we believe to be true can affect how we vote, how we interact with others, and how we live our everyday lives.

Check out this explanation the illusory truth effect

This Psychology Today article looks at the connection between the illusory truth effect and propaganda

Here is the abstract from the Yale University Study

This Psychology Today article discusses the results of the Yale University study

Online Self-Audit: The Dark Side of Social Media

I have never thought of myself as someone with a large online footprint. I don't use Facebook or Twitter. My Instagram and Snapchat accounts are both set to private; I only use Snapchat to communicate with close friends, and it has been a little less than a year since I posted on Instagram. I first created my social media accounts in high school and am quickly growing tired of them. When I spend a lot of time online, I begin comparing the entirety of my life to the best parts of my friends' lives. I find myself feeling depressed, less social, and less productive. It wasn't until recently that I became aware of the various privacy issues associated with the internet, specifically issues involving tracking.

In several of my courses, professors have discussed how social media sites can track our personal data and use it for marketing purposes. However, I did not let this stop me from entering my email on several websites. I tried to avoid giving out my phone number, but I did not hesitate to release my name and other personal information. I was not aware of the extremely pervasive nature of companies' tracking techniques. My perspective began to change when I read Richard Stokes' article, "I Left the Ad Industry Because Our Use of Data Tracking Terrified Me". Stokes describes how companies can use our cell phones to uncover intimate details of our day to day lives. Our cell phones can be used to trace our every movement; companies can go so far as to use our phones to track our addresses. Websites can gather our private information, even if we are not fully aware of it. Stokes writes, "These companies have been extracting our personal data without permission and making fortunes with it. And now, with every post, click, and purchase, we have become the product". As websites sell our personal information to other companies, we transition from being mere consumers to being the merchandise.

In recent months, I have been considering trying to diminish my online footprint. I have always felt somewhat uncomfortable using social media. Now that I am aware of various tracking techniques, I am even more hesitant to continue posting online. With that being said, I can only do so much to limit my online presence. Even if I delete all of my social media accounts, I will still be seen on other people's pages, and I cannot take back the personal information that I have given to other sites. Similarly, companies may still be able to track me through the location services on my phone. The idea of online tracking is rather frightening, but I don't know how we can completely resolve the issue. I may not have a solution to the problem of data tracking but at least now, I am aware of it.

"I Left the Ad Industry Because Our Use of Data Tracking Terrified Me" by Richard Stokes

Eight Values of Free Expression: The Value of Dissent

                                                  Justice John McLean

As Americans, many of us take pride in our democratic ideals, but what does it mean for a government to be truly democratic? We can look to the words of Abraham Lincoln; we want a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  If a democracy is a government of the people and by the people, does that mean that all people should have a say in the ruling of a nation, or should the final decision always be determined by the majority? In other words, can a government truly be ruled by the people, if some people have no say in the governing? In a situation where the majority is overwhelming in number, it may be easier to agree that the majority should always have the final say. If 75 percent of citizens agree with a bill, many would say that passing the bill would be democratic. However, if only 51 percent of citizens agree with a bill (so 49 percent disagree), would passing the bill still be considered democratic? The situation becomes even more complicated when some people are constantly in the minority. Is it democratic to let some citizens consistently have a louder voice than others? I'll admit that it is difficult to think of a solution to this problem. It seems more democratic to frequently side with the majority, but we need to ensure that the voice of the minority is still heard. This is why it is important to protect the dissenting opinions.

The views of the minority, though they may be unpopular for a time, may prove to be valuable in the future. Throughout history, we have seen former minority opinions turn into the opinions of the majority. This is especially true in Supreme Court cases. In Dread Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court's decision is considered a failure of the American judicial system. The Court essentially ruled that African Americans do not qualify as citizens. The dissenting opinion from the case is now the opinion of the majority. Justice John McLean wrote in his dissent, "Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen... A slave is not a mere chattel. He bears the impress of his Maker, and is amenable to the laws of God and man." With his dissent, Justice McLean helped pave the way for African Americans to be given citizenship and be recognized as human beings.

An Article on Famous Supreme Court Dissents

More Information on Justice McLean

Can the United States Restrict Chinese Reporters?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

The Chinese government is notorious for its media censorship and propaganda. Reporters Without Borders has ranked China number 177 out of 180 countries in terms of their freedom of the press. Several months ago, the United States announced that reporters from five different media outlets will have to register as "foreign agents" due to the Chinese government's intense control of their nation's media coverage. The following day, China expelled three American reporters based on an editorial  concerning the coronavirus outbreak that originated in China. A month later, China has expelled two more reporters who work for American media outlets.

In response, the United States has announced that China's primary news outlet, Xinhua, will have to reduce their United States based staff from 160 to 100 reporters. A United States official claims that the reduction is long overdue and allows for a "level playing field". The United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claims that this does not take away from the freedom of the Chinese press as the content of their reporting is not being restricted. Pompeo hopes that the change in policy will encourage Chinese leaders to change their practices. Pompeo stated, "It is our hope that this action will spur Beijing to adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to US and other foreign press in China".

When I first read about this story, I felt that the United States may be going out of bounds by restricting the Chinese reporters. Now that I have had a chance to think about the issue, I can better understand Pompeo's claims. As long as we are not controlling what the Chinese reporters can and cannot report, I see the United States' reasoning. With that being said, I am not completely on one side or the other. I think that we need to do our best to protect the integrity and reputation of our country, but we need to be careful not to limit the freedom of others to do so.


BBC's Report on the New Restrictions

The Stop Guilt by Association Act

Senator Sandra Cano

A controversial bill was introduced in the Rhode Island Senate before it was withdrawn on March 5, 2020. The bill, referred to as "The Stop Guilt by Association Act", would have have placed restrictions on the press. According to the bill's sponsor, Senator Sandra Cano, a primary goal of the bill was to protect those who have been charged with and then acquitted from a serious crime. Currently, when a media outlet initially covers a case, it is under no legal obligation to broadcast the conclusion of the case. A problem arises when someone is charged with a crime and then not convicted; a person accused of a crime could have his or her reputation damaged even if he or she is found to be innocent of the crime.

Cano decided to withdraw the bill after receiving persistent opposition from the New England First Amendment Coalition. The coalition claimed that the bill was "unconstitutional" and that it was not the job of the government to regulate how public matters are broadcasted. The group stated that the bill could "turn newsrooms into an arm of the judicial system and ultimately discourage crime reporting altogether for fear of liability".

The language used in the bill has also received a lot of negative attention. The potential act claimed that the state should "stop the press from serving as a slander machine". Cano has announced that she did not intend to disrespect the media by introducing the bill, and that she understands how the language used was inappropriate.

While the bill didn't make it through the Rhode Island Senate, it has raised an interesting question. Do the media have an obligation to finish the stories they start? Is this especially true when the unfinished nature of the story threatens to harm someone's reputation or put an inaccurate slant on the story? There is certainly a moral obligation to share the conclusion of a story, and I would argue that there is a legal one as well. If a suspect or defendant has been named, then the news station should have a moral and legal obligation to announce if the defendant is acquitted; otherwise, I fear that many people will be defamed.

An Article from a Local News Station in Rhode Island

Facebook Bans Face Masks

It is hard to go anywhere without hearing about the threat of coronavirus. People are racing to buy hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes; many are even buying face masks in an effort to prevent the sickness from spreading. With all of the buzz surrounding coronavirus, it is easy for people to get in a somewhat frenzied state while they use resources that could be used elsewhere. Facebook has decided to address this issue head-on.

The social media giant announced that it will take down all Facebook ads and commerce listings that promote the use of face masks. Facebook claims that the ads seem to be an attempt to "exploit" an international health emergency. In addition to banning ads, Facebook has made the decision to remove any unofficial medical claims related to coronavirus and will remove any listings for products that claim to effectively prevent the spread of coronavirus.

Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) is making similar efforts. The site will remove any misinformation on coronavirus in addition to any ads exploiting the illness.  Instagram will also be sending some posts to fact-checkers while insuring that posts from/the accounts of leading health organizations will be the first results for those searching for anything directly involving COVID-19.

I normally am not a fan of hiding content from viewers, but I think that the severity of the coronavirus warrants Facebook's and Instagram's actions. I have met several people who are terrified of catching coronavirus; reading false information or being bombarded with ads for face masks would only heighten their fears and lead to more chaos.

A Microsoft News Article on the Facebook Ban

Chuck's Controversy

Senator Chuck Schumer

On Wednesday, March 4th, Senator Chuck Schumer was speaking at a pro-choice rally when he made some controversial comments. While addressing the crowd, Schumer appeared to threaten two Supreme Court justices. Schumer claimed that justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would be punished if they voted in favor of restricting abortion rights. Schumer stated, "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions". 

The comments made by Schumer are seen by many to be out-of-line. Several people are questioning what "price" Schumer was referring to. Did he mean "price" in terms of a violent threat, economic loss, or simply political damage? Several officials in Washington have taken issue with Schumer's words; President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Chief Justice John Roberts have all spoken out against Schumer. In a statement, Roberts referred to Schumer's remarks as "inappropriate" and "dangerous". 

A spokesperson for Schumer claims that he was referring to a political price when he challenged the Supreme Court justices. The spokesperson stated that the comments were meant to warn Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that if they voted in favor of restricting abortion, there would be "a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision". 

I think that Schumer's comments against the justices were certainly inappropriate, but I don't believe that they were meant to be of a threatening nature. His remarks were likely referencing a political price; however, he never should have referred to specific justices by name. Doing that was unnecessary and could prove to be dangerous to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Schumer did not intend to incite violence, but some of his followers could potentially misinterpret his statement. Despite this possibility, Schumer should not have to deal with legal repercussions for his words. If we begin restricting speech on the basis of a remote potential for it to lead to violence, none of us would ever be able to speak again.  





The Response from Chief Justice John Roberts

More Details on Chuck Schumer's Remarks

How Ray Tomlinson Changed the World

Ray Tomlinson

Ray Tomlinson permanently changed the world of communications when he sent the first email in 1971. Tomlinson, a Rensselar Polytechnic Institute and Massachusetts Institute of technology graduate, was an employee of  BBN Technologies at the time of his infamous invention. However, Tomlinson did not invent the email as part of his regular job; he was merely working on a side project. At the time, scientists were already using electronics to communicate, but they were only able to send messages between multiple users of the same computer or to mailboxes that required the message be printed in order to be visible. Tomlinson sought to find a way to transmit a message from one computer to another. To do this, Tomlinson altered already existing programs to develop the first email software. The term "email" did not come to be until several years later, but Tomlinson was responsible for using the "@" symbol to distinguish the name of the recipient from the location of the email address.

Since its advent, email has had a profound impact on how society operates. Email provides individual people with a means to communicate messages instantly and globally. People can communicate with more people in more locations in less time and for less money. This same idea of instant peer-to-peer messaging is still emphasized today as we develop various message transmitting applications and devices; without email, these technologies may not have ever come to fruition or may have taken longer to be invented. Email had also added variety to our communication abilities. Email enables users to send more than just texts; senders can transmit images, videos, links, documents, and presentations.

Here at HPU, we are required to use our emails daily. Email allows us to communicate with professors and to receive notifications from the university. HPU's email network has provided the university with a means to connect the students with the school. The invention of the email has affected the communications' structures of this university and the communications' structures of the world.

An Article from Guinness World Records

More Information on How Technology has Impacted Society

Philly Jesus Fights for First Amendment Rights

Michael Grant

Michael Grant (A.K.A. Philly Jesus) is somewhat of a local celebrity in the city of Philadelphia. Grant dresses up as Jesus of Nazareth and preaches to those around him; he has made appearances at numerous city events, parades, and is seen wandering the streets. In the past, Grant has been the subject of controversy.  Prior to his reputation as Philly Jesus, Grant was a Heroin addict. Since he began his so-called preaching career, he has been accused of homophobia and was arrested in 2016 for defiant trespass and disorderly conduct when he refused to leave an Apple store.
Now, in 2020, Grant is back in the headlines and is once again having difficulties with police.
However, this time is a little different. Instead of facing charges, Grant is trying to charge the city of Philadelphia with violating his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendment rights. 

On December 21, 2020, Philly Jesus was preaching outside of city hall while holding a sign that read "If you die, are you going to Heaven? Find out here". He also had a basket for donations to his cause. Grant claims that police approached him and told him to "stop preaching".  Grant says that when he refused to stop, two police officers "dragged" him across the street, put him in handcuffs, and issued him a citation for "failure to disperse".  Philly Jesus claims that his First Amendment rights were violated when police officers limited his speech in a public space. 

If Grant's version of the story is accurate, then the officers were definitely guilty of violating his First Amendment rights. Grant claims that he was expressing himself in a peaceful manner in a public forum; there is no reason why this should not be allowed. However, I can't help but wonder if there is more to the story.  There has been public outcry over police actions in the past several years, but I think that it is important for us not to automatically assume that the police officers are in the wrong. I think that the incident needs to be further investigated before a decision is made in the case. 


An Article on Michael Grant's Lawsuit

Information on Michael Grant's Previous Arrests

EOTO Technology: The Typewriter and the Working Woman

Christopher Latham Sholes first developed the idea of the typewriter in 1867, but it wouldn't be until 1874 that the original typewriter would hit the market. Sholes partnered with E. Remington and Sons to manufacture the first typewriter, the Remington. The first model lacked a shift-key mechanism and was therefore only able to type capital letters. By 1878, the typewriter had developed to include a shift-key function and was able to type capital and lowercase letters as a result. Certain features of the original typewriters are seen in more modern technology. The keyboard of the first typewriters had the characters arranged in a nearly identical way to how they are positioned on our modern laptops and computers.

To many of us today, the typewriter may seem like an outdated and useless device. While the typewriter is no longer used in everyday life, it has had a profound impact on communications' culture. The advent of the typewriter led to an overall rise of professionalism. The typewriter led to a standard communication system; typed papers were far easier to read than those written in various penmanships. As a result, there was an increase in document legibility. The typewriter also increased the efficiency of writing; typing was faster and appeared more professional than handwriting.

Additionally, the typewriter led to a rise in administrative work. The ability to type became a trained skill and a professional commodity. As a result, more women entered the workforce as assistants and secretaries. In one sense this was a step in the right direction. The typewriter gave women an opportunity to work without the pressures of manual labor or factory work; women were able to work alongside men in a professional setting. Secretaries became common in the workplace and were especially valued for the number of the words that they could type a minute. However, secretaries were also valued for something other than their typing ability.

Women who took on administrative roles were typically seen as objects of desire who were valued for their sexuality. Secretaries were frequently painted as sexy women who had semi-romantic relationships with their bosses. I have personally seen several older films in which the secretary was depicted as nothing more than a typewriter with legs. The idea of the "office wife" began to emerge in American culture. Secretaries were seen as office wives meant to serve their office husbands and cater to their every need. This reinforced the subservient image of women throughout society.

Background on the Typewriter


More Information on the Typewriter and Professionalism

Details on the Typewriter's Connection to Gender

An In-depth Look at Women in the Workplace

A Case of Legality vs. Morality

Hesseltine's Yard Display

Morality is not synonymous with legality. It is possible for something to be immoral without it being illegal; adultery, for instance, is frequently thought of as immoral but is not illegal on a federal level. The same concept can hold true for some forms of offensive speech. Potentially offensive and foolish, speech is protected by the First Amendment. However, speech can be limited if the speech poses an imminent threat of violence. Determining whether speech poses this threat is not always an easy task.

Donald Hesseltine, a resident of Davenport, Iowa, has recently received media and legal attention for his controversial lawn display. His front yard featured a mannequin gunning down snowmen dressed as Democrats. The mannequin is seen carrying a chainsaw, a can of Busch light, and an assault rife. The weapons are pointed towards snowmen wearing various Democratic attire. One snowman was knocked over and wearing a Bernie 2020 shirt with a pool of red-dyed snow surrounding it's head;  a pink sex toy was placed next to the snowman. Another snowman was wearing a blue hat that featured an image of the Democratic donkey. The body of the snowman was smeared with red dye.

Some claimed that Hesseltine's display was a form of hate speech and a hate crime. Chair of the Scott County Democrats and former state representative, Elesha Gayman, referred to the display as a "hate crime". Gayman went on to say, "It’s as bad as if someone burned a cross in someone’s yard. We have got to stop this. This is not the Wild West. We should be able to civilly disagree with one another, where you’re not displaying acts of murder on your front lawn".  Gayman, along with Mayor Mike Matson, called for local police to look into the matter. Matson also referred to the display as hate speech and claimed that it was "an embarrassment" to the city.

Others claimed that Hesseltine's disturbing display is protected by his First Amendment right to free speech. Hesseltine's neighbors disapprove of the violent display, but they recognize that offensive speech is protected in the United States. Alderwoman Marion Meginnis is representing Hesseltine's neighborhood and has shared her take on the issue. Meginnis stated, “It’s bad taste, unneighborly... If if does not violate a city ordinance, there is no action the city can take...We are a country that allows people to have opinions".

While free speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, there are exceptions to the rule. Speech that provides a threat of imminent violence is not protected in the United States. When asked if the display was intended to incite violence, Hesseltine replied "no way". Hesseltine claims that he has several friends who are Bernie Sanders supporters, and that he put up the display to "mess with them". The community of Davenport is still trying to sort out the issue.

I find this situation very complicated. There is no doubt that the display was immoral and disturbing. However, this does not mean that Hesseltine's actions are not protected speech. Hesseltine claims that the display was not meant to incite violence, but the display is still very violent in nature. Despite this, I am inclined to see Hesseltine's actions as protected speech. While I find the display disgusting, I think that our nation needs to be especially cautious in regulating what citizens can or cannot display on their own property.

An Article on Donald Hesseltine's Yard Display