Blog Post 7: The Progressive Era; Roaring Twenties

The function of disagreement, and in specific instances of conflict, is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance. The First Amendment plays an essential role in protecting such disagreement within the country. In World War I and during the Progressive Era, anti-war conflict was often suppressed through legislation passed through the Espionage Act and Sedition Act. According to the National Constitution Center,  it is when America criminalized speech against the war. Such suppression has been rationalized in terms of protecting national security and ensuring public order at the expense of the persecution of various individuals who were expressing dissent against the war.

As society moves toward the modern era, one can see that America is still wedded to its policy of conducting foreign interventions in all corners of the globe. Strongly anti-war opinions have vocal champions, yet all too often such opinions become marginalized. Websites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative offer an arena for unapologetically anti-war views; however, these opinions usually do not appear in mass media outlets. Such exclusion provokes serious questions about mass media's role in framing public opinions and in reflecting minority opinions.

There are multiple reasons why anti-war opinions get marginalized. Media have inbuilt structures of ownership and prejudice, which create political and economic alignments in mainstream press outlets in support of military intervention or in support of national security interests. Such an alignment can generate biased reporting, in which anti-war opinions get excluded and pro-war opinions get undue prominence. Media concentration in the hands of big corporations worsens this situation. Such corporations have vested interests in perpetuating the state's status quo, apart from support for measures taken by the administration of the United States for advancing business interests.

Corporate interests have a big impact on the way reporting is done in the media. Media consolidation is an issue in which big corporations have ownership of a large share of the media industry. Such corporations can have vested interests in the status quo, such as promoting military interventions that serve their business interests. This can result in insufficient diverse alternative opinions in mainstream media sources, mainly those that happen to be anti-war.

Patriotic partisanship is another crucial variable to be taken seriously. In times of warfare, mainstream media usually side with national symbols, consequently mirroring governmental rhetoric at the expense of minority views. This has become an often-repeated phenomenon, ranging from the Iraq conflict to current military activities. Public opinion and fear also further perpetuate suppression of anti-war opinions. Anti-war protesters always come across strongly held notions of patriotism and national security, which in turn arouse public outrage and fear. Consequently, this situation further contributes to such views' marginalization by mainstream media.

 

The First Amendment is meant to protect minority views. However, its application is sometimes uneven, especially in cases involving the government's interests. That people turn to alternative venues like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative is a testament to the difficulty anti-war advocates have in gaining mainstream acceptance. Though such sites provide an essential information about anti-war discussion, their relative lack of popularity compared to mainstream sources demonstrates the challenge in gaining national exposure for a wide variety of viewpoints.

Analysis of multiple different sources allows for an accurate and critical review of U.S. foreign policy and its consequences. A healthy democracy demands diverse input, especially input contrary to mainstream opinions. Anti-war opinions are especially important because they offer critical analysis of what can happen in cases of military intervention and encourage discussion of alternative non-aggressive solutions. Incorporating them in public debate can ensure a better-informed public forum and consequently contribute to better policy.

With everything that has been said, an effort to encourage acceptance of anti-war sentiments in mainstream culture and different measures is very important in this country. Media literacy not only empowers people in understanding and actively seeking different views, it allows our country to honor its right to freedom of speech and not threaten it. Independent journalism and non-mainstream news platforms can further provide outlets for anti-war opinions. In conclusion, disagreement, especially in times of war, represents one of the fundamental components of democratic governance, and the First Amendment is instrumental in protecting this dissent. Marginalization of anti-war viewpoints in mainstream media is influenced by diverse factors such as media bias, corporate agendas, patriotic partisanship, and dominant public opinion. Access to alternative news sites such as Antiwar.com and The American Conservative provides for broader and critical evaluation of American foreign policy. Anti-war opinions in mainstream discourse are key to a thriving democracy; efforts to promote greater media literacy, support independent reporting, and encourage public forums can all be vital in achieving that.

Blog Post 6: EOTO Technology

The EOTO presentations seen were educational, and I walked out of the room with things I did not know before. I never realized how technology has had that big of an impact on the world today, and the issues and prospects that come with it are worthy of our utmost attention. In the presentations, I saw the impact of the rise of social media from the 2000s into the 2010s to the present day. Websites like YouTube, whose early slogan read "Tune in, hook up," helped people express themselves in the media. 

Among the most notable breakthroughs is how access to information with technology has influenced our world today. Social media has benefitted education and the spread of knowledge, just like in the most difficult moments, like the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it has helped people stay in touch with family and loved ones, keeping relationships that could otherwise be difficult to maintain. Another area affected by this is the capabilities of technology, which includes specialized professions like surgery, whereby experts can provide informative material to far-reaching audiences.

However, with the rapid growth of technology comes some disadvantages. The presentation highlighted the troubling phenomenon of misinformation. Which has the potential to spread rapidly through multiple platforms. This can negatively impact public understanding, which is an arising issue right now. For instance, copyright issues also arose as a prominent topic, with online sharing of content raising questions about intellectual property rights. These phenomena require careful consideration to mitigate their impact on society.

The conversation also shed light on some fascinating and unexpected examples of the misuse of technology. Among them is the use of pigeons to smuggle drugs in different countries. This is a reminder that advanced tools and technologies can be used to carry on immoral practices. I personally think we have so much advanced technology that can be used for good practices, but we have people in the world that choose to abuse them. To conclude, the presentation highlighted the positives and negatives of technology. The presentation has shown its ability to bring people together, to inform, and to innovate, alongside its ability to create problems as well. As we move forward into a more modern society, we need to consider the pros and cons of social media and the digital world. 

Blog Post 5: Invasion of Privacy

As we enter into the modern digital world, issues surrounding data mining, behavioral targeting, and the third-party doctrine are arising. Such issues have far-reaching implications for our civil liberties and privacy and are felt by individuals and collectives alike. The videos we were assigned express the issues of media tracking, such as data mining, third-party doctrine, behavioral marketing, and vice versa. 

Data mining describes the systematic investigation of huge data sets to obtain valuable knowledge without the individual's explicit agreement to do so. The obtained information is then used in behavioral advertising, whereby businesses tailor ads based on internet user behavior. Though this may lead to more relevant experiences, it simultaneously means that all our online actions are being monitored and scrutinized. As a user is searching for a new pair of shoes, for instance, it is reasonable to expect to see shoe ads on any websites one visits. Such ongoing monitoring may feel invasive and unsettling.

The third-party doctrine tells us that people have no reasonable privacy expectations in relation to information voluntarily given to third parties. As such, this suggests that records given to corporations, such as those related to mobile phones or internet activity, can be accessed by the state without having to obtain a warrant. Therefore, leading the doctrine strongly undermines our privacy by allowing extensive surveillance to take place without us being able to know or act on it. This issue is showing us how we are always being watched and our rights are not being followed. According to the National Archives, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, Americans have the right to privacy according to the Fourth Amendment. 

Issues under focus directly affect me and my family and friends in many ways. First, ongoing monitoring and data gathering can create feelings of vulnerability and invasion of privacy with respect to our own personal data. Second, these practices arouse fear regarding the misuse or exploitation of the same to commit crimes like identity theft or exploitation in general. Third, lack of privacy can affect open expression. This starts causing the chilling effect to set in and make people hesitate to speak out in the cyber world. 

The government has a vital role to play in helping with these challenges. First, it is important to consider rules on data mining and behavioral marketing to guarantee the privacy of citizens. This requires businesses to have explicit permission before the collection and use of personal information. It is also crucial to revisit the third-party doctrine to help protect the privacy of citizens. As well as legislation needing to intervene and think about how much of our personal data is now in the hands of third parties.

In daily life, there are several ways one can protect themselves against privacy invasions. According to Softonic, having strong and unique passwords on numerous accounts can help prevent unwanted access. Two-factor authentication increases protection with an extra safeguard. The practice of carefulness with the details we place on the internet and adjusting privacy settings on social networks can help reduce our online footprint. Additionally, using encrypted messaging apps and virtual private networks to encrypt our messaging and internet use can improve protection considerably. 

In conclusion, while data mining, behavioral marketing, and the third-party doctrine cause privacy threats to individuals, there are responsibilities on the part of the government and individuals alike in countering these risks. Through support for more privacy legislation and practice by taking proactive action to protect our own personal data, we can better navigate the issues of the age of technology.