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