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