Our relationship with technology

On a personal level, I feel that I have an unhealthy relationship with technology.  Every day when I wake up, I get nervous because the first thing I do is check the internet, and there is almost always something bad happening.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the internet has made news more easily accessible, and social media provides us with live updates in real time.  Still, the over-reliance and overconsumption of technology is disconnecting society from everyday people.  

I have tried to limit my use of technology this year, but have really not been successful.  Everyone needs the internet for work or school, so you can't limit yourself too much from technology.  But in the spare time that I have, I still use most of it browsing the internet, playing video games or watching television.  I put off activities like exercise or reading books because I feel like I don't have time for those, but with the time I'm using technology, I certainly can do those things.  It might be a problem with me, or with the internet making me think I don't have enough time for other activities.  

Watching the World's Fair Futurama video, I found it interesting how well technology has advanced since then.  We have explored the moon and ocean, but at the same time, there are no highways connecting entire continents.  The world has still been connected, just through the internet.  But the last line of "man must charge his own course into tomorrow, a course that frees the mind and the spirit as it improves the well-being of mankind" has stuck with me.  With the expansion of technology, our mind and spirit has not necessarily been freed, but reconditioned into a dependence on what humanity has created.  And while technology has brought many great things to humanity, it has faced unintended consequences that have made society worse.  

The Brexit vote and U.S. Presidential Election, both in 2016, laid bare the problems with misinformation being spread across the internet, which likely had a direct impact on the result of both elections.  In addition to misinformation and lies being easily spread on the internet, social media is designed in a way for users to only see information that aligns with their views.  The spread of fake news has been regulated since then, but people can still access the same information that can be intentionally misleading.  It is almost impossible now to debate or argue in an honest manner, as the anger on the internet can largely be attributed to consuming sources that aren't trustworthy.  

As for the music video, I honestly had a hard time taking it seriously.  There has been a lot of media criticizing people, especially millennials, for their use of technology, to the point where the criticism has become a joke in of itself.  However, this could very well play in to the desensitization of people to criticism and empathy, among other things.  Similar to how the frequency of mass shootings has been desensitized to become a terrible norm, the ability to think and feel rational thoughts and emotions are not commonplace anymore.  While the "boomer vs. millennial" memes might be funny, it represents a society that doesn't take itself seriously anymore.  With this becoming mainstream humor, I'm concerned that this generation and future generations may not feel as sympathetic to societal issues down the road.  However, this stems from a lack of progress being made in our nation's political landscape, which is a much bigger issue than some jokes online.  If our political leaders can do more work for a just society, then perhaps the generational rivalry wouldn't be as big of an issue.  

As stated in a prior blog on TED Talks and security, technology is slowly leading us down a dark road that can be rectified with even simple solutions.  For all the criticism that the tech industry receives, they have done a good job at listening to complaints and working to resolve them, which does not make me too worried about the future.  I often look on the internet for bad news, but if our political leaders did their job better, then I, along with millions of Americans, may not be as concerned about the country.  As I am now graduating in an election year, hopefully America can right technology's ship and leave a better future for myself and future generations.  

While a fairly simple joke, it conveys a message on how humanity is dependent on technology and how we rely on it for answers, no matter how complex or insignificant.  

A meme on the boomer and millennial divide.  It may not make a lot of sense, but that's kind of the point, as people on the internet seemingly now argue for the sake of argument.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/10/19/the-future-of-truth-and-misinformation-online/
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/ok-boomer-diving-generation-what-does-it-mean-ncna1077261

The Smith-Mundt Act

When looking at the list of terms, I saw a lot of words and phrases that I was familiar with.  However, I had never heard of the Smith-Mundt Act before, so I decided to look a little deeper into it.  Named for Representative and soon-to-be Senator Karl Mundt (R-SD), the bill was introduced in January 1945 and signed into law in January 1948.

The bill established for the State Department to communicate to audiences outside of the United States through various means, including broadcasting and print media.  It was first introduced at the end of World War II, and sought to keep permanent some of the means of technology that were utilized during the war.  The Office of War Information was discontinued by President Truman at the war's end, but most of its features were moved to the State Department.  This included the publishing of books and films, as well as the operation of a radio station that would eventually become known as Voice of America.

The Smith-Mundt Act faced difficulty getting through Congress.  With the Red Scare in its early phases, multiple representatives believed that Communists were infiltrating the State Department.  These fears were the main reason for opposition to the bill, as high-ranking members of important committees wanted to essentially purge the State Department of so-called "traitors."  The initial bill passed the House of Representatives, but died in the Senate when nobody would co-sponsor.  In March 1947, Mundt again raised the bill in the House, which was expanded on both his original legislation.  After this one passed the House, Senator H. Alexander Smith (R-NJ) co-sponsored the bill in the Senate.  After many high-ranking State Dept. representatives testified in the Bill's favor, it was ultimately passed in the Senate and signed by President Truman.

The big reason for the Smith-Mundt Act's passage was for the United States to have a direct line of communication to foreign nations in order to combat propaganda from the Soviet Union and other Communist nations.  Essentially, America sought to combat propaganda with their own propaganda, which is essentially why the bill was established.  The Office of War Information was created to rally Americans behind the fight against the Axis Powers, and the Smith-Mundt Act sought to continue its features as the Cold War was in its early years, albeit the U.S. was looking to influence foreigners rather than Americans.  Congress knew that these efforts could come off looking very similar to Soviet and even Nazi tactics, so they sought out multiple means so as to not be on par with them.  Mainly, the United States Information Agency and State Dept. were unauthorized with sharing these international messages with an American audience, as disseminating these materials to them would come off as propaganda.  In addition, the State Department was not allowed to establish a media monopoly, and allow private broadcasters to continue operating and even review the role of the government.  The federal government couldn't get too much influence in this area, so while the State Dept. sought to maximize use of private agencies, they weren't allowed to get too close.

No American was really ever going to be impacted by this bill since State Dept. messages could not be shared within our borders.  However, he ban on sharing international messaging within the United States was lifted in late 2012, when the bill was re-authorized by Congress.  This was done to combat online influence of terrorist organizations, but realistically, any President can now legally subject Americans to propaganda through government-led radio and television broadcasts.  I'm not so sure if President Trump is aware of this, because with his attacks on the free press, this bill would come in good use to him.  Every American would likely face the same effects of propaganda if it were to ever be pushed on the public, and even if people don't believe it, the constant bombardment of lies could eventually wear down any realistic resistance to the government-run broadcasts.

Even before the authorization of propaganda in the 2012 amendment, the Smith-Mundt Act was always an American form of propaganda.  At the same time, however, the bill still prevents government monopolies on the media and the bill is not exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  Legislation like this would be useful for war, and was considerably helpful during the Cold War, but with the Soviet Union now gone, it might be best for the United States to repeal this bill altogether.  There is no need to combat Communism anymore, so Congressional funding shouldn't really be going to a propaganda arm of the USA if there is no enemy to influence people against.

Representative Karl Mundt (R-SD), who introduced the bill and for whom it is named after.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml

Online Privacy

Having viewed the TED Talks on online privacy and discussing the risk it poses to liberties, I did not find myself learning many new details.  This is a subject I have learned about extensively, and have blogged about previously.  And even though I feel largely unfazed from the videos, I am still concerned about some of the implications that these details pose.

As most people know, websites and even the government track our data and store our information based on search history.  These sites and agencies keep our data, even as most of us commit non-criminal acts, which I believe is a violation of the fourth amendment.  Our browsers should not be monitored without a warrant, and any information that is collected can potentially be used against us if we were to ever commit a crime, which is arguably another infringement of this right.  And the idea of "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about" doesn't apply because all of our data is stored, and we're all secretive of what we search for even when we don't have to fear the law.

But in recent years, the military and police establishing high-grade surveillance systems to monitor and track us.  A lot of people feel that our leaders in these institutions are untrustworthy, and given that they track everyone, these concerns are warranted.  These measures have put us very easily on the edge from being a dystopian and/or authoritarian state, and if an event like a terrorist attack were to be heavily exploited, the freedoms of every American would be gone.

Thankfully, non-political figures have taken the steps to ensure privacy on the internet.  Companies like Apple have implemented encryption features to keep peoples messages and emails protected from outside threats, which keeps us a lot safer from having our conversations being spied on.  While it's not impossible, government agencies have a much more difficult time spying on citizens.  This is on top of the already expansive surveillance systems in place, and in order to properly ensure the protection of everyone's personal information, politicians who support such systems should be put in place to implement these laws.  That way, Americans don't have to worry about being tracked, and non-compliant businesses and agents can be held accountable.  At the same time, devices like police stingrays have proven to be effective and shouldn't be eliminated, but should still be utilized under a warrant.  With the state of the internet bringing us to such a dangerous place, actions like these should be taken in order to not only protect everyone's internet life, but regain their trust in the people who represent them.

My Online Footprint

With the internet giving reach to a seemingly infinite number of things to search, I have spent a lot of time browsing in my life.  I have a busy online life, as I have emails for Google, Yahoo, and High Point University.  For varying purposes, I use all of these emails to create accounts for various sites, such as ESPN and Hulu.  For anything relating to my academic life, such as PurpleBriefcase or LinkedIn, I will obviously use my HPU email to log in.  For personal matters, I mostly use the Yahoo email, and Google is mostly for class projects and work-related matters.  I will give my email, as well as phone numbers, to established and trustworthy sites like Disney+ and American Airlines since they're either free or give me content I am looking for.  Even with these sites possibly sharing my data to third parties, I've come to accept that the sort of thing is rampant in online culture today, and even if that's a terrible sign of normalization, it's just something that I, and most people, don't really care to pay attention to.  I mostly read my HPU email account for information since that relates to me more than any other; I don't receive mail from Google and most of my inbox for Yahoo is junk anyway.  This leaves my HPU email the most looked at, and Blackboard as my most visited site.  Aside from BB, Yahoo, and ESPN, most of my online presence is left to be on social media.  

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and SnapChat for social media, plus Tik Tok now since I've been incredibly bored the past few weeks.  Each site varies in terms of the content I put on it, so while I may post something funny on Twitter or Snapchat, I'll often be more serious in my posts on Facebook and LinkedIn.  For the latter sites, those will involve more links to articles and videos I see or things I do that I want to share, while I just talk about basically anything on Twitter and Instagram.  This leaves impressions from outside viewers to be mostly mixed: people on Twitter may think I'm funny or stupid, while those on Facebook may see me as more serious.  

Considering the article from The Atlantic, there are some very good points that I think I fit into.  Even with the friends and followers I have online, I never really interact with them.  Occasionally, the things I post are for attention so that people may find me humorous or interesting.  I have fallen into that hole of wanting attention and doing a whole bunch of stuff for it, which I have come to regret at times.  It's not so much that I'm lonely, but that I want to reach out to people, which I think is the unintended message of the article.  In addition, being present also affects my mental state quite often.  Pretty much all of the news is terrible these days, so it bums me out frequently to see all the bad in the world.  Even with some of the things in my life getting me really upset, I feel worse for the reports I see on social media since they're often more severe and consequential than the negatives in my life.  I don't really feel lonely, but the desire to gain attention certainly doesn't help in regards to how I display myself online.  

The History of Zoom Video Communications

As everyone is at home right now, professors and students are now starting to use Zoom Video Communications to connect with their class.  Founded by Cisco Systems and WebEx engineer Eric Yuan, the site reached one million users within two years of its creation in 2011.  Zoom continued its rapid growth from there, reaching 40 million individual users and 65,000 organizations in 2015, and became worth $1 billion in 2017.  The company would go public on the NASDAQ in 2019, and was worth $16 billion at the end of its Initial Public Offering.  

Even though Skype was the dominant web service for online meetings for years, Zoom was likely seen as a way to introduce competition in this specific field.  So many people caught on quickly, likely because they preferred the site's higher quality and greater reach that came along with the initial $9.99 price.  With the number of partnerships and connections that Yuan formed, its quick growth into a service worth billions of dollars made it truly one of the most effective services for online communication.  

And in the past month, Zoom has effectively become a common term in the world of education.  They offered free services to both k-12 schools and colleges during the coronavirus outbreak, and classes have been held on the platform since the stay-at-home orders were initiated.  Over 2.2 million people have joined Zoom since the start of 2020, which is already more than all of 2019.  In addition, the share price for Zoom has increased 263% from its IPO last year, which makes it one of the best choices for investors as concerns are growing over a recession.  

While not the only video conferencing platform, Zoom has taken measures to beat out the competition.  Not only do they offer free services during the COVID-19 pandemic, they also has stronger customer support that offers FAQ's and video tutorials, whereas sites like Skype leaves you to search for answers on your own.  The site also offers better customization services, and while upgraded plans are more expensive, users are able to hold larger meetings and offer greater administration features.

But as with any other online social service, Zoom has faced a number of controversies in its swift rise.  There are concerns about its privacy policy, as the site collects any information taken in a meeting and its reach could lead any administrator to contact anyone in a meeting.  The FBI has also warned that student data and browsing history may also be at risk, which would put Zoom under violation of FERPA.  And just recently in March, the U.S. Federal Court sued Zoom for disclosing data to third parties, as they are also under investigation by the New York State Attorney General's office over their privacy practices.  

Zoom is facing the same controversies as sites like Facebook and Google have, but they should try and come clean and vow to do better.  Because the entire country is using its services, I do not think the backlash would be too severe among users and there would be more willingness to forgive.  But even with their questionable privacy services, Zoom has done a great job in rising from small project to billion-dollar enterprise within just a decade.  Even if their user base and stock price drops at the end of the pandemic, they have still earned the benefit of brand recognition among a wide audience and will certainly retain users.  Skype will likely be worried about Zoom now, since they are now the dominant web meeting platform across the United States and the world.  

An example of a Zoom meeting layout.  

https://zoom.us/about/
https://www.gadgetreview.com/zoom-vs-skype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications

The Second Value of Free Expression

To me, participation in self-governance is the most important value of free expression.  Of the eight values, the second is the only one, at least in my opinion, that has worked best in practice.  Ideas such as individual self-fulfillment and and a promotion of innovation do not look as plausible, since there is no absolute way for everyone to fulfill their goals and there is seemingly little left to innovate.  As for popular theories, like the marketplace of ideas and promotion of tolerance, can be construed differently from its intended use and fall down a rabbit hole filled with people who do not understand what they truly represent.  Both in theory and practice, the idea of participating in self-governance is the best way of promoting an open society that truly understands what its talking about. 

By being a citizen, everyone effectively has the right to participate in governance.  Even non-citizens have power to take part in how the nation is shaped, though their role is far more limited than that of an actual citizen.  People who are born in the United States or successfully apply for citizenship are granted powers such as the right to vote and the ability to run for office.  Even with seemingly limited power, non-citizens can still do things such as become informed of politicians and candidates, as well as attend meetings for various causes and demonstrate in protests.  While these can still be effective, the power of a citizen is still more impactful, as not only are they the ones who are able to vote, but can also be selected to be a juror as well as serve in the military.  

The ability to participate in self-governance was an idea that the founders sought to include.  After being ruled as a colony by a king, they established a set of laws that enabled the public to select who they want to govern them.  Of course, the right to self-govern is also a choice, which many people opt not to do.  While they shouldn't necessarily be forced into the process, non-political people should still be encouraged to take part in elections and keeping up with politics.  Out of all our varying interests and hobbies, politics is the one thing that affects all of us whether we recognize it or not.  If we have the power to vote, campaign for or donate to candidates, and even sign petitions to support causes we believe in, then we should use these abilities to the best of our power.  With the right to self-governance being one of the oldest and most proven successes of free expression, it is something that everyone should look in to not just continuing, but preserving for the rest of time.  

Town Halls are one of the most popular forms of self-governance and is one of the most easily accessible ways for citizens (and non-citizens) to participate

https://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/lesson-plans/456-how-can-citizens-participate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eermkiaFoWc

Marble racing: The "sport" that has the won the hearts of fans worldwide

With the coronavirus resulting in a ban on public gatherings, many sporting events have been postponed or canceled, and as a Sports Communication major, I have been left incredibly bored in recent days.The NBA and NHL regular seasons were winding down, the NCAA Tournament was set to begin, and MLB Opening Day was right around the corner.  With virtually nothing to watch, some sports fans like myself have resorted to marble racing, which, as it turns out, is actually very entertaining to watch, especially in a time like this.

A video of marble racing went viral on Twitter on Sunday, and thousands of people, including myself, immediately became attached to it.  While zero athleticism is involved on the human's part, it is still thrilling to watch the marbles race each other down a hill or across a set.  A YouTube account, Jelle's Marble Runs, posts videos of what are essentially seasons where each marble gets tallied for points across multiple races, culminating in the one with the most points being named champion.

In recent weeks, Jelle's Marble Runs has uploaded videos of Marbula One, a parody of Formula One Racing, where the marbles go around a track that's similarly designed and scored the same way as well.  I became a fan of the O'Rangers (the orange marble "team") after the team had an exceptional first-place finish in their most recent race.  The channel had half a million subscribers before I discovered its existence, and its cult-like following has earned many new members in recent days.

As the world currently lives in fear of the coronavirus, marble racing is quite literally the only thing that can keep sports fans occupied.  The YouTube channel even released a statement that they would be continuing to record and upload marble races, as it is essentially the only sports organization that has not experienced an interruption in its season.  If people would rather get involved with marble racing, they can certainly do so on their own rather than just watch videos of it.  Of, course, sports fans could also just watch highlights of old games, but since we have long known the outcomes of various sporting seasons, all the marble racing videos give us the new thrill of not knowing the outcome of how the event is going to go.

Jelle's Marble Runs has welcomed thousands of new subscribers, as well as a ton of social media attention.  They have experienced the most success in all the years of doing marble racing, which has genuinely served as a positive mean of entertainment for sports fans worldwide.  Of course, there is no guarantee that the people who are suddenly interested in marble racing will stay once the coronavirus is gone and our regular sporting events return, but I have developed an interest that will at least keep me coming to the channel regularly.  Hundreds of thousands of people were subscribed for years before this moment, and will continue to watch videos going forward, as this is more than just a fad or small hobby.  Many people find joy and satisfaction in marble racing, and I hope that if any positives comes from a time like this, it's that the "sport" continues to grow from here.

A video of marbles racing down a hill.  The "sport" has witnessed a sharp increase in fans, and will likely maintain this new viewership base for at least a few weeks.    

 https://twitter.com/davdchristmas/status/1239196410857340933?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYJdpnjuSWVOLgGT9fIzL0g/videos

How the media is dealing with the coronavirus

In regards to current events, the biggest subject of the past month (and likely the next few weeks) is the coronavirus, the disease that is spreading across the United States and the world.  There have been countless media reports on the issue, and there is no end in sight.  With a lot of panic and fear about the coronavirus, is the media doing its job correctly, or are they overblowing this story?

There is a lot of concern for media at both the local and national level on evaluating cases of the coronavirus, as they have reported many confirmed cases, but have also overblown cases that have only been suspected rather than confirmed.  The World Health Organization even says that the overabundance of information has led to an "infodemic" that confuses and scares audiences rather than inform them. 

In fairness to the media, it is okay to speculate on cases that may not be confirmed just yet.  However, that is something that should be stated in the headline or in a social media post promoting an article, as it would otherwise serve as clickbait and lead to more panic than reasonability.  With a lot of misinformation in the current age, there should be more explicit reporting on what has been confirmed and what is not yet confirmed. 

As China has largely suppressed information of the coronavirus, many citizens of the country have suffered for it.  This is a chance for the rest of the world to do better, so the outlets where most people go to for information should not be misleading or deceitful in their reporting.  At the same time, I agree with the article that the media should not amplify the messages of politicians if they are lying, as those falsehoods could lead to patients dying or refusing help and result in worsening the crisis.  This will likely remain the biggest story going forward, and probably be the year's biggest subject, so it's best to remain careful in what outlets are reporting. 

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/coronavirus-exposes-gray-areas-for-media/

Cable Television

In the prompt to write about another technology, I decided to work on cable television, which was done by Taylor Richards, another member of my group.  I found it fitting to do such a topic, since I wrote about television as a whole and even mentioned cable TV in my part of the presentation.  Since cable played a major role in both the expansion and dilution of television, it's fitting for me to expand on the same topic.

I decided to use the same sources for the research as Taylor had, in an attempt to see if there was anything I could expand on while in the same scope that he had done.  There was a lot of detail on the history of cable television, but I want to see if there was anything he wasn't able to include, as well as try and provide more emphasis on the impact.

Cable was introduced in 1948 almost simultaneously in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon as a way to enhance TV signals in mostly remote areas.  Antennas were placed on mountain tops to receive a signal, which was then fed to another antenna that was placed on top of another home.  This was done in rural Pennsylvania by John Walson, an owner of a Mahanoy City General Electric appliance store who is credited with the creation of cable television.  It also innovated the community antenna television (CATV), which is now commonplace in the United States.

Along with connecting television for rural communities, cable was seen as an expansion of television, and by 1952, 70 networks serviced 14,000 subscribers.  In addition, cable also allowed for long-distance signals to be transmitted for miles rather than local stations and signals, which led to 800 networks having 1 million subscribers just ten years later.

Along with the expansion of cable in the 1950's was the space race, which propelled with the Soviet Union launching the first satellite, Sputnik, in 1957.  It played a major role in the development in cable transmissions, as AT&T launched Telstar to transmit signals across the Atlantic Ocean in 1962.  Satellites play a major part in the transmission of cable, as networks like HBO would launch their own satellites in the future.

That would have to wait, however, as the FCC placed restrictions on the transmission and import on long-distance tv signals.  This caused a stop in developing new cable systems for nearly a decade, where deregulation and a change in enforced rules led to a new rise in cable programming.  Money had all but disappeared in the ten years since cable nearly fell apart. When HBO launched its satellite, it allowed for nationwide access to programming, which would be followed up by Ted Turner launching TBS.  As cable television was once again profitable, more people were subscribing to cable than ever.

Upon the passing of the Cable Act in 1984, regulations were loosened to enable the creation of many new networks.  As billions were spent on new wiring and programming, the number of subscribers jumped to 53 million, but rising costs led to concerns on longterm viability for cable. To act on this, Congress issued a law in 1992 that only allowed new cable companies to include wireless cable and direct satellite broadcast.  However, the expansion of cable was not slowed down, as the number of channels grew from 79 to 171 over the course of the next decade.  Many cable packages were offered to give a variety of networks, and 65 million Americans paid for cable by the turn of the century.  In addition, companies invested billions of dollars to build faster fiber optics and build the internet as it is today. 

Since the beginning of the 21st century, cable has expanded to offer on-demand services, and digital services were also being implemented. Starting in 2002, people were using cable to access the internet through Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP).  Even with the rise of the internet and streaming services, 93% of television owners also hold a cable subscription today, and the number of channels is still on the rise from 280 in 2002.

The birth and rise of cable can be simultaneously tracked with that of television.  Most of us have paid for cable in our lives, and its vast amount of offerings have allowed us to find content we like.  Cable allowed for the expansion of television, and we likely would not have been as innovated without it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walson

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/31741

Blue Skies: A History of Cable Television

https://www.ncta.com/cables-story

https://www.calcable.org/learn/history-of-cable/

EOTO Research

For the EOTO assignment, I focused on the history and impact of the television.  Despite being less than a century old, TV has become an essential part of our lives, as we use it to get the news, learn about the weather, and to entertain ourselves with a wide amount of programming across hundreds of channels.

The first television was created in 1884, as just an electromechanical device that produces monochrome images.  However, September 7th, 1927 really indicates the birth of television, as 21-year-old Philo Farnsworth created the first electronic television.  Farnsworth's development allowed for images to be scanned by electrons, which captured images through radio frequencies that would transmit the image back on to a TV screen.

The first broadcast came just a few months later on January 13th, 1928 in Schenectady, NY.  Local General Electric workers broadcasted rotating images of a Felix the Cat doll for hours to test the equipment.  This station later became WNBC, which eventually grew into an entire network.

In the 1930's, RCA, a dominant radio business that also owned WNBC, invested $50 million in developing electronic television. They ended the decade with televising both the World's Fair and a Princeton-Columbia baseball game, and with a license on Farnsworth's patent, began to sell 5x12 televisions that were known as "the tube."

In the 1940's, less than one percent of households owned a television.  World War II forced a focus in manufacturing weapons rather than televisions.  They cost about $400 at the time, which was worth the average two months' salary in a household.  However, the technology soon improved and TV's were sold at lower prices, and up to one-third of American households owned a television.  Although the decade was slow for television, it was important in creating the major networks that dominated both the screen and airwaves.  The Columbia Broadcasting System (later known as CBS) began airing daily news reports.  When the Supreme Court forced RCA to get rid of one of their networks, the one they lost eventually grew into the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) as they kept the National Broadcasting Company (NBC).


During the 50's and 60's, three national networks were the most often viewed in the United States: ABC, CBS, and NBC.  Each day, families traditionally gathered around to watch the nightly news as well as that day's programming.  Tens of millions of people tuned in to watch the shows and movies that aired on television, which expanded into nightly talk shows and game shows as well.  These shows were funded through the radio profits of the networks, though television quickly became profitable as well.  A sense of unity was brought together in both the household and across the country, as Americans would all be connected through these same shows that ushered in the "Golden Age" of television.  Moments such as Walter Cronkite's report on the JFK Assassination, The Beatles appearing on The Ed Sullivan Show, and the moon landing were all moments that were shared with all of America.

In addition, television had a pivotal role in shaping American politics.  The 1960 Presidential election debates were the first to be aired on television, and viewers noted an old and sweaty Richard Nixon struggling against a young and handsome John F Kennedy.  In addition, footage of the Vietnam War was instrumental in swaying public sentiment against it, with the government not taking too kindly to CBS in particular.

In 1967, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) was founded after it was recommended that a nonprofit station be included to challenge the other three networks in terms of news and education.  Rather than advertising dollars, PBS relies on public donations, government funding, and corporate underwriters.

However, the rise of cable television in the 1980's brought new programming fixated on one subject, which included MTV, ESPN, and CNN.  And with households now owning more than one television, families could watch what they wanted at any time.  This rise in new networks and programming has sort of unglued the binding power that existed when television was dominated by those three main networks.

Along with a change in programming selections, coverage  of news had been largely swayed in the 1990's.  CNN innovated in its Gulf War on-the-ground coverage that updated Americans in real time, and was even used by the government to keep up with events.  In an attempt to challenge cable as well, a lot of tabloid shows and talk shows emerged to attempt to sway viewers.  This was all started by the sensationalism of the OJ Simpson trial.

Innovation was also introduced for television during this period.  During the 80's, cassette players allowed for people to record and re-watch shows, and video games were also transformed by the use of television.  In addition, high definition television, or HDTV, was introduced to allow clearer, high resolution images.  However, televisions of the time could not pick up HDTV, which led to a massive transition from the old bulky TV sets to flat screens, which could also pick up digital transmissions. 

Although televisions are less than a century old, it's hard to ever imagine a time where we didn't use them.  Even with the internet taking hold as the new means of entertainment, television has always been the catalyst for innovation in both programming and news. Trends may change and viewing habits may differ, but television will forever be recognized as a piece of technology that transformed the world. 

A family sitting down to watch television.  The way we view TV today is far different from how it was in the '50's and '60's.  

https://www.reference.com/history/year-did-first-television-come-out-c4ac5ddbb1390c53

https://junior.scholastic.com/issues/2018-19/012819/how-television-changed-america.html

https://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/History%20of%20Television%20page.htm

What are the implications of the Equifax data breach charges?

In 2017, Equifax suffered a data breach that exposed the personal data of over 145 million Americans.  And now, the Department of Justice charged four Chinese men with causing the breach this past week.  Even if these charges turn out to be false, there is still reason to be very concerned about this. 

Over the past few years, organizations such as Facebook and Quest Diagnostics have suffered data breaches that have put the personal information of millions of people in peril.  Hacks and data breaches have become frequent in the past few years, and while outrage ensues after each time, little is being done to prevent them from happening again.  Even though these instances happen more often now, it is still unlikely for anyone you know personally to find your information.  But the fact that our information is (likely) still out there and open for the authorities to see is still concerning. 

What is even more stunning with this was that foreign governments are now doing the targeting of these hacks.  If a foreign adversary can manage to discover the credit scores of individual people, then basically anyone can do the same thing.  Any individual or group can discover our personal information with less surveillance and monitoring than a potential Chinese hacker, as the consequences for the lack of proper defenses against data breaches can be even more far-reaching than we could anticipate. 

In addition, the motives of the people behind these hacks could make these attacks even more frightening than the act itself.  Could China potentially tank the stock market?  Something like the Equifax breach suggests they may try, as both this breach and an economic recession would really cause serious harm to Americans.  In addition, with China facing criticism for their brutal crackdown on protesters in Hong Kong, there is a lot of reason to think the people behind this are even more sinister than we anticipated.  If China is willing to do anything to suppress its own citizens, it's reasonable to think they'd do far worse to any NATO ally.  As the Chinese continue to grow their influence on the world, they might be willing to take more action in gaining leverage on other nations, as suggested by the Equifax data breach. 

The four Chinese researchers, all of whom are alleged to be tied to the country's military, and their charges from this past week.  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-charges-chinese-nationals-010904022.html