EOTO #2 Reaction: The Spiral of Silence, Gatekeeping, and Cord-cutting

The second round of EOTO presentations was on terms and concepts surrounding society and technology. Here is everything I learned about the Spiral of Silence theory, gatekeeping, and cord-cutting. 

The Spiral of Silence theory is about an individual having an opinion on something controversial and choosing to keep their opinion hidden, for fear that whatever they are thinking may be an unpopular or unacceptable opinion by the majority of people who flocked to a more popular opinion.

Brittanica defines it more specifically as, "the theory that people’s willingness to express their opinions on controversial public issues is affected by their largely unconscious perception of those opinions as being either popular or unpopular." 

Someone may not go against popular opinions or trends because they do not want to look like they are "wrong" or saying or believing the "wrong thing". 

The Spiral of Silence theory really seems to revolve around a fear of judgment by others. 

The truth is, just because something gains popularity, does not make it morally "right". However, in the case of this theory, the individual who has a differing opinion from their peers wants to remain agreeable and not isolate themselves by expressing a different set of thoughts. I found this theory interesting because it is visible in society; particularly in those who may have social anxiety or aim to blend in with a crowd. 

Gatekeeping, as defined by dictionary.com, has two meanings, one pertaining to physically keeping watch of a gate, and the other being the definition I was looking for. The more relevant definition states that gatekeeping is, "a person or thing that controls access, as to information, often acting as an arbiter of quality or legitimacy." 

An example of gatekeeping in our generation currently is when a person refuses to share what products they use or purchase regularly to prevent the products from selling out and becoming hard to find. This is usually seen on social media. Business Insider defines this modern version of gatekeeping as, "having access, opportunity, or knowledge — and then keeping it all to yourself." 

Gatekeeping has become a more serious term regarding internet safety. Google, Facebook, and Amazon, just to name a few, have been saving our information and for a while, it was not widely known that our information was being saved. These companies gatekept our own data from us. I'm curious as to what information about me is being saved. 

Cord-cutting is the idea of canceling satellite or cable television to prioritize streaming services or other internet media. Cord-cutting has started to become more frequent year by year, as more television companies have noticed people flocking to streaming services instead. In the past year, roughly one million users have canceled their cable or satellite television subscriptions. 

With younger generations going straight to using streaming services and skipping out on cable and satellite, their parents are following suit and switching to only using streaming services as well. 

Cord-cutting may be financially beneficial, as the costs of streaming service subscriptions are less expensive than paying for cable and satellite television. Also, streaming services offer a wide range of television and movies readily available to its users, that may not be playing on cable or satellite. 

One negative connotation with cord-cutting is that streaming services are not live, and do not contain a live news source. To be able to watch live news broadcasts, updates, and breaking news, people would still have to have access to cable or satellite. As a future journalist, I do not support cord-cutting for this reason only. I think that it is important for everyone to have access to news at all times in case of an emergency and just to stay updated in general. 

Blog Post #10: Living in the Age of AI

After watching the documentary about artificial intelligence by Frontline on PBS, it is safe to say that no one should blindly put their trust in technology, people are tracking you, and the internet is forever. 

For starters, in the documentary, it is said that the standard of living has gone down by 15% due to advances in technology. Whether you're a tech lover or a hater, I think that is still a concerning statistic. 

The beginning of the documentary explores the fact that AI was able to swiftly outsmart its human opponent, Lee Sedol, in a game of Go by using moves no humans have ever thought of using before. 

As a result, Sedol, previously known as a Go champion, resigned from the game. According to the documentary, the AI taught itself how to play Go based on the history of other games and by studying moves. 

The documentary raises a lot of good points about both the benefits and pitfalls of using artificial intelligence. A few interviewed sources give their takes on how it affects jobs, and other sources tap into how your digital footprint can be used for profit, such as in the case of companies selling your data. 

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, once said at an IPO, "We know where you are, with your permission," and continued to list out other qualities Google knows about a person with their permission. While people are searching Google, Google is searching them too. I found it interesting that Eric Schmidt declined to be interviewed for the documentary. What is he hiding? 

Shoshana Zuboff said that whenever we search for stuff on the internet, we are leaving "digital traces" of ourselves that anyone can have access to. Zuboff also said, "Industrial capitalism claimed nature," and based on the way things are now, I agree with her. 

Another problem Zuboff mentions is the danger presented by wealthy people buying and selling your data. She says that if someone has enough money to buy people's data, buy scientists, and buy companies, only problems await and people's privacy is put at risk. 

AI is stealing human jobs by working quicker and more productively than human employees. Companies are turning to machines to crank out riches for them. The documentary showed viewers a grocery store where machines were retrieving items for human customers. 

To make matters worse, Molly Kinder said that women hold the job positions today that are at the highest risk of being lost and given to machines. As a woman, that terrifies me. Imagine spending the earlier years of your life studying in school and building upon your work experience just to be turned away and replaced by an AI employee. 

The sad reality is that AI has already begun to take jobs that people may not expect it to. According to Kate Crawford of the AI Now Institute, AI has weaseled into healthcare, education, and criminal justice, as well as shopping. 

AI is also heavily affecting the world of politics. The documentary states that the power of AI could pose a threat to democracy. We are given a glimpse of how this technology is used and abused by the government in China. Research scientist, Xiao Qiang, says, "China is on its way to building a total surveillance state." 

The Chinese government has already installed millions of cameras with facial recognition to keep track of every move a citizen makes and shame them publicly for wrongdoings, such as jaywalking. 

The documentary also says that homes in China have a barcode posted outside the door to show what type of citizen is living there. Quite an invasion of privacy. 

Regarding the relationship between AI and business, investor and adviser to Facebook, Roger McNamee, explained why companies value our data so much and how it helps them. 

McNamee said, "Behavioral prediction is about taking uncertainty out of life. Advertising and marketing are all about uncertainty. You never really know who's going to buy your product...until now." 

Big companies, including Google and Facebook, hold onto our preferences, our searches, and our interests in order to spit them back out at us in the form of suggested items we might want to purchase. If we choose to purchase these suggested items, we are then showing companies exactly what they want to see - that behavioral prediction works for them. 

These companies can then aim their products toward a target audience or group to increase sales. For business, it's a win-win. For us as individuals, any information we put about ourselves on the internet is no longer just ours. Our information alone is a business now. 

McNamee also said, "We have to recognize that we gave technology a place in our lives that it had not earned." I think this is one of the most important quotes in the documentary. 

In addition, Roger McNamee spoke with anchors at CNBC as part of its business segment, Squawk On The Street, on May 30th. McNamee discussed the troubles of AI, how it compares to cryptocurrency, and how certain generative AIs such as ChatGPT are "B.S. generators". Feel free to check it out here or below. 

Lastly, before we insert AI into every inch of our everyday lives out of convenience, we must educate ourselves fully on how technology like this works and be aware of the chaos that can ensue if it becomes too powerful. If we fail to do that, then technology will have earned its place by outsmarting humans.   

Blog Post #8: Privacy Online and Offline

After watching four TED Talk videos about how technology affects our privacy, I have learned an uncomfortable amount of new information. 

The first video I watched was of Darieth Chisolm talking about revenge porn, or another title given by Chisolm, "digital domestic abuse". Chisolm's stalking, toxic, manipulative ex-boyfriend had taken explicit photos of her while she was asleep without her knowledge or consent, and posted them on a website with Chisolm's name on it. This guy even went as far as sending a link to the website to Chisolm's ex-husband. 

This video affects me, my friends, and my family, because anyone's personal information or explicit content can be posted online without warning or consent, and it is quite a hassle to get it taken down by professionals, as Chisolm discusses in the video. Photos meant to be private and not released publicly could upend careers and damage reputations. The government should find a way to wipe this type of content from the internet much quicker and have less of a waiting process for victims. 

As for how we can protect ourselves from revenge porn or having our explicit photos leaked, I have been told since the start of my teenage years to rethink who I belive I trust, and to be careful who I choose to put my trust in. When I was in middle school, a group of guys in my grade leaked a girl's explicit photos without her consent and sent them around school. That taught me from a young age that absolutely no age group is safe from digital abuse or cyberbullying at such a private and sinister level. 

The second video I watched was of Christopher Soghoian talking about avoiding cell phone surveillance. Soghoian brought up wiretapping, stating that the U.S. government or even a foreign government could be wiretapping and listening to what's going on on your phone. He also said that iPhone users who text other iPhone users are less likely to get wiretapped, because it would be more difficult that way. Same goes for if someone with an iPhone were to FaceTime another person with an iPhone. I was a little relieved to hear that as an iPhone user myself. 

These issues affect everybody, because we live in a generation majorly ruled by technology. I cannot think of one person that I know personally who does not carry around a smartphone of some sort. We rely so heavily on these things and use them so often without thinking about the risks of who has access to them besides ourselves. 

Soghoian said in the video that if the government can intercept calls from a terrorist or a drug dealer, there should not be any reason why they cannot intercept anybody's phone calls and listen in. I think the government should only wiretap when they think it is necessary, for instance, in criminal investigations or to track someone who may pose as a threat. If I had to guess, the general public probably do not have very interesting phone conversations that the government needs to eavesdrop. 

Soghoian mentions that the government would have to stop wiretapping every single device, thus losing track of bad guys in the process which could be dangerous, so I know that I cannot ask the government to stop wiretapping people altogether. In order to protect ourselves from government surveillance and the possibility of our devices getting wiretapped, we as a society should aim to only use communication services and apps that are protected by encryption, such as iMessage, FaceTime, and Whatsapp. 

The next video I watched involved Catherine Crump discussing that the police can track our locations. People's locations are a sensitive piece of information. The police keep a record of every license plate that passes through the location trackers, and hundreds of photos of people's cars and their whereabouts. The police can also release information from cell towers to discover who was using a specific cell tower at what time. Crump made a point to say, "just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there." 

These issues affect me, because I drive a car back at home and was just made aware that the police have records of all the locations I have driven to at certain times in my life and possibly photographs of my car. If the government is doing this as a safety measure to track criminal vehicles or criminal cell phones, then I guess I am not as worried. However, I still do not want the government owning this stuff about me. Crump said that local police stations can be governed by the city councils who can make laws to dispose of innocent people's locations and other data. I hope that happens. 

The last video I watched was a TED talk by Juan Enriquez, comparing your online footprint to a tattoo. He referred to a quote by Andy Warhol, where Warhol theorized that in the future, people would be world-famous for only fifteen minutes. Enriquez decided to flip the theory on its side, and theorized himself that maybe in the future, people will be anonymous for only fifteen minutes due to their "electronic tattoos".

There is no such thing as digital privacy, since multiple online platforms and applications hold onto the data and information that you choose to share with them. When you post something online or enter any personal information such as interests or personal preferences, it is out there for the world to see forever. 

I have heard people say the internet is forever, but I was never aware of to what extent exactly. This issue affects me and the people I love, because I and everyone I know share things online with each other. A good amount of my friends and family have Instagram, Facebook, etc and update their statuses on there frequently. The government should not be holding on to all of our data, and should get rid of it. To protect ourselves from this type of invasion of privacy, I think we need to reflect on what we should allow ourselves to post online, and start being more private with our lives on social media. 

Blog Post #7: Diffusion of Innovations

The Diffusion of Innovations theory talks about the effect of certain inventions or ideas on the general public and separates those who hop on the bandwagon into different groups based on when they join in. The groups consist of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. 

I found an article that defines these groups in simple terms. Innovators are open to risks and are the first to try new ideas. Early adopters are interested in trying new technologies and establishing their utility in society. Early majority includes the general population and moving tech through mainstream society. Late majority is just the delayed version of the early majority, and laggards are self-explanatory: they lag behind the general population in adopting new ideas. 

I believe that social media follows the Diffusion of Innovations theory. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube have been stealing ideas from each other for years. Below is an example of the theory at work.  

Snapchat released its "My Story" feature in October of 2013. With this feature, users could post pictures and videos they took onto a storyline viewable by friends for 24 hours. Later on in May of 2017, Snapchat released custom stories, to which users could add specific photos and videos and allow specific other users access to viewing and adding to the story too. Part of the custom stories feature is the creation of private stories, where only you can post content, and only those you add to the story can view that content. 

Instagram swooped in with its own story feature in the summer of 2016, with the same functions as Snapchat's stories. Users could share photos and videos with friends that would disappear after 24 hours. Adding fuel to the fire, Instagram then went ahead and launched a new story feature called "Close Friends Stories" in 2018, which mirrored the concept of Snapchat's private stories. Users could post content onto a story that only those who got added were able to view. 

Facebook was the next app to come out with a story feature in March of 2017, using the exact same concept as Snapchat and Instagram. Users could share photos and videos with friends on a storyline that lasts for 24 hours. 

YouTube released a story feature in 2019 where users could view stories for up to 7 days. The company got rid of it in the summer of 2023 due to a lack of popularity and community engagement. 

TikTok followed suit and launched its own story feature in 2022. TikTok stories have the same concept as Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook. Users share content that friends can view for up to 24 hours. 

In the example above, the idea of sharing and posting "stories" as a social media feature is a new, innovative technology. Snapchat stories are the innovators, Instagram stories are the early adopters, Facebook stories are the early majority, YouTube stories are the late majority, and TikTok stories are the laggards. TikTok eventually hopped on the story bandwagon, but since they were the last platform to do it, I consider them the laggards. As the idea of "stories" rose in popularity over the years, more apps chose to add it to their list of features in order to join in on what mainstream society was doing.