Audio Technology Through the Decades

     From carrier pigeons to bluetooth, audio communication technology has never ceased to improve. Significant developments in communication devices were especially seen during periods of wartime when morse code became a prominent form of sending messages to and from distant locations quickly and securely during World War II. 

    A later wartime advancement was seen during the World War II time period as well through radio broadcast which surged in popularity as citizens listened, eager to learn what events were developing and how the nation was doing overseas. Even after the end of the war, there was a growing interest in radio broadcasts because of its entertainment qualities. 

    Though the radio show business saw a decline as other forms of spreading news entertainment surfaced like television and now social media platforms making earlier inventions such as the VCR and cassettes  

Eight Values of Free Expression

       Being able to freely express our thoughts, as I am in this post, is a right I value deeply as an aspiring journalist. Several speech theories such as "The Marketplace of Ideas" and many other time-tested concepts can help to understand how our expression works in a world where we can type our thoughts in a matter of seconds to share with people around the world and place value in expressions of our own free speech. By learning how aspects of theories of speech help to shape your own identity, it can allow you to incite ideas in others, spark larger change, or even prompt change in government. 

One theory I find particularly relevant that addresses “cancel culture” in our society is Steve Shiffrin’s idea of protecting dissent. This idea addresses how our nation’s values of free speech is not intended to be run by mob rule. While we value a majority rule in law making and voting, it is important that minority views are not silenced. Whether a company is voting on new business endeavors or candidates are debating their viewpoints during election year, the idea of majority rule and minority rights is a controversial topic in the media. 

When former President, Donald Trump was permanently banned from the social media platform, Twitter, the company released a blog explaining their reasoning behind their decision. In the interest of public safety, Twitter claims that his account was used to incite violence which violated their terms of use agreements.

→ Read this blog post by accessing the link below ←

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html 

In opposition to Congress’s actions prior to Trump’s transition out of office, he had tweeted addressing his followers that their voices could have a voice in the future for their conservative viewpoints. Twitter states their interpretation of his tweet as being an incitement of violence because days after the post, hundreds of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol while Congress was in session. 

       

        While Twitter’s decision to permanently ban Trump’s twitter account does not violate his First Amendment rights since the government was not the entity who restricted his speech, this silencing should draw concern from citizens of the “free world” no matter what political stance we have. If Twitter has the power to silence any user who has millions of active followers, they have the authority to silence anyone who’s voice violates their interpretation of terms and agreements.  

→ Check out this website to see data on Trump’s Twitter account ←

https://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/twitter/profiles/detail/25073877-realdonaldtrump

Trump’s loss in the 2020 election shows the current political climate in our nation and that his views may not be the majority’s, but should that mean his opinions and others in agreement with his positions on political topics should not be heard? Referring back to the idea of Protecting Dissent, it is more important than ever to hold companies like Twitter accountable for abandoning principles of free speech that our inclusive melting pot of a nation was founded upon. Since a small number of companies own every news media outlet, and the prominence of a few social media platforms reduces the likeness of new platforms emerging, silencing of minority opinion happens more often than we know. Tediously developed algorithms and other tactics used especially by social media platforms can hinder our ability to see information contrary to the views of our frequently accessed sources which poses a threat to our ability to speak freely and without fear of being “canceled” for your speech: because at any point in time, your voice could be the next to be silenced.

Antiwar Voices

                                                                

    For a nation like the United States, going to war carries many other meanings besides just battling to resolve a conflict. As a nation who has taken on the role of peacekeepers of the world, war means money, resources, and maintaining unity throughout the nation's citizens. The mainstream media has a role in projecting a sense of unity across the United States to create a sense of unity as one nation rising up as one to defeat threats to our freedom. Expressing these ideas is an important use of the Free Speech protected by the First Amendment during wartime when encouragement and information need to reach a large audience quickly. However, in the midst of unifying messages to gain public support during wartime, there are also voices of opposition which are often silenced. 

    When the United States formally entered World War I, in 1917, it became a priority to protect the interest of national security at a great cost.  Despite a great deal of opposition for going to war and the United States' prior position of neutrality in the beginning of the European powers' aggression with each other, an American ship sunk by Germany prompted further U.S. engagement in the war. With the death of over one hundred Americans at the hands of the Germans, President Woodrow Wilson acted. At this point, America's fight to protect our freedoms and fight socialism was a primary focus in the media and caused much controversy at home in the U.S.. 

★ This article from History.com provides great detail ★

of the process taken by the U.S. to formally enter war, and what prompted the action to be taken

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/america-enters-world-war-i   

  

    At the start of U.S. involvement in World War I, citizens gathered peaceably in many major cities throughout the country to voice their concerns for entering war and journalists used their voices through publication, but these antiwar voices were put down in many ways. In particular, one pivotal Supreme Court case brings attention to the balance of First Amendment protection and national security. In a series of leaflets published by Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, they expressed views “that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude” as explained in the case’s Oyez summary. 

    Two years prior to the release of these leaflets, Espionage Act was passed which punished government workers who spoke out against the government, and was aimed at punishing people specifically during the years of World War I. In addition to the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act was also passed to punish private people who spoke out against the government and involvement in World War I.The very first statement of the First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”, which is alarming congress was able to do so in the first place. Though the Sedition Act was repealed in 1921, its initial passing calls the very foundations of our government into question, and while the leaflets were released as propaganda by socialist party supporters, their free speech expressed valid points of the draft’s violation of rights also protected by the Constitution.

    Regardless of the Supreme Court’s tedious contemplation of whether or not Schenck and Baer’s journalism was a threat to national security and if the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment, the case set an important precedent for future cases involving these convictions. The Supreme Court’s “Clear and Present Danger” Test was created, establishing according to the case’s decision that “the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent”. 

★ For a closer look into the details of Schenck v. United States, ★

this user-friendly article by Oyez is an excellent source!

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 

    Each time a case is brought up to the Supreme Court, their decisions create a precedent that creates a lasting impact on our freedoms, which can be altered by judicial activism, or maintained by judicial restraint, and even a case like Schenck v U.S. that occurred a century ago has shaped our ability to speak freely now in the twenty-first century. 

Focus on the Future

    Looking back at my athletic career, I cannot count the times my parents paid for tournaments, uniforms, equipment, doctor visits, clinics, camps, hotel rooms, flights, and food; all to ensure I had the best opportunity to be recruited to play Division 1 lacrosse in college. Every athlete has been through the tedious process and experienced the rollercoaster of emotions that dreaming of playing a collegiate sport entails. One of the most important factors which guided my decision-making during my recruiting process was a school's academics, not just their lacrosse team because my competitive spirit does not only live on the field. I wanted to make sure I chose a school that would provide excellent opportunities for me to pursue a career in journalism post-graduation. I am now playing Division 1 lacrosse at High Point University, where I will complete my Master’s in Strategic Communications and a double major in Journalism and Political Science in just five years. I stand by the importance for athletes to value their time in college as a student-athlete, and to put as much effort as they do into their sport as they do in the classroom. While playing a collegiate sport provides an experience like no other, athletes' primary focus should always come back to earning a degree and pursuing a career after their time in college. Allowing collegiate athletes to be paid through sponsorships and merchandising will take away from their college experience, and place their focus on making money in the short term. 

    One of the greatest feelings of being an athlete is the high energy flowing through the team before a big game, which carries through the entire day, the locker room, warmups, and heightens just as the first whistle blows. With one common goal shared among every play from the bench to the starting goalie. The fiery desire for one thing: victory. Every second the team pushed through conditioning and cheered each other on during intense practices come down to the moment the ball goes up in the air. But what happens when this flow of energy pulsing through the team is disrupted? What happens when the star playing isn’t on the same page as the rest of the team, distracted from the excitement of representing his or her school at the highest level of collegiate competition because they were too focused on something else? Money. Greed changes people’s motivations and goals and could have a detrimental effect on the entire team’s morale. When an athlete loses focus on “team” and shifts their energy toward “me” it will change their entire outlook on game day. 

    There is already tremendous pressure to perform each time an athlete steps onto the field, but when athletes go into a game thinking of it as a pay-day instead of a game day, that pressure increases more. On top of school and sports, the last thing that should enter a student’s mind is the thought of playing badly and not getting paid as much or possibly losing a sponsorship. Suddenly, a selfless team player could turn into a selfish ball hog because their priorities shift from team to me when money is the incentive for outstanding performance, not representing your school. So many athletes see their sport as an escape from worry, judgment, family issues, financial burdens, and time spent with your teammates is irreplaceable, shaping the character of every player. Athletes are successful on and off the field because the tenacity it takes to be a college athlete becomes an instinct, and carries over into all aspects of life. The work ethic athletes have will serve them well as they continue to learn and focus on their future. The future they will earn from a degree, no matter what sport got them there.

 

For more information on this topic, visit this link for an interesting read, or the NCAA website!

-> https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-moves-toward-allowing-student-athlete-compensation-endorsements-and-promotions

Facebook: Connecting the World or Interrupting Privacy?

    Facebook is a prominent example of issues our technologically driven world is facing today in the fight between advancing our ability to connect through social medias and protecting our Fourth Amendment privacy rights. As new cases rise to through the court systems regarding big-tech companies overreach into our personal information, several first hand experiences of people who worked for companies such as Facebook and Twitter give us a glimpse into the depth of privacy violations those companies have made. Facebook, led by famed Mark Zuckerberg, has entrenched its employees with their motto of connecting people across the world and has obviously been successful in doing so. Since Facebook's start in 2004, the site has gained over 2 billion users worldwide along with a great amount of detailed information on each user.

This website provides a great visual of Facebook's growth in users!

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/)

    With the development of intricate algorithms which track Facebook users' likes, views, and activity, the corporation has been able to increase users' engagement by updating their newsfeeds with content they would be more inclined to view, thus making their experience more enjoyable. While this concept sounds like Facebook has its users best interest in mind, taking a deeper look into how much information Facebook uses is somewhat scary as a user myself and is brought up in arguments today among many privacy law experts. Many of Facebook's former employees in the documentary The Facebook Dilemma expressed a shift in Facebook's focus once their popularity soared from gaining more users to developing algorithms to improve users' newsfeeds. Beginning with paying closer attention to users' activity on the site, Facebook started using ads based on their frequently visited sites and web searches to further increase engagement. This brings in questions of privacy violations because of Facebook's access to so much information of users' activity outside of their Facebook usage. 

This website has a great, up-to-date explanation of how Facebook's algorithms work:

    https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-algorithm/

                                 An interesting timeline of Facebook's developments in their algorithms:

  

  Facebook's developments in their algorithms have proven to be successful for the company in terms of user engagement, but it is interesting to consider how far the company will go to reach even more of the world's population. Even though each user agrees to terms of use and privacy agreements upon registration of their account, Facebook has been criticized for creating non user-friendly agreements. Facebook was criticized even further when it was their arrangements with third-party data brokers who used Facebook users' information and messages to collect data on their activity. Though the investigations into Facebook's possible violations of Privacy of the Fourth Amendment are ongoing, it is important for Facebook users to consider how much information they choose to put on their social media accounts and what they choose to give Facebook access to when connecting with the world. 

The First iPod

The First iPod

    There is hardly a day that goes by without playing music from our devices. Whether you are listening to soothing study songs or getting your team pumped up for a big game, music has become an essential part of the daily routine for the majority of people in the twenty-first century. Since the Information Age surged with innovation beginning in the 1970s, technology has made incredible progress, especially in the aspects of widespread public access and convenience. The so-called "Information Age" earned its title when many start-up companies, like Apple, produced products that gained the attention of a generation that aspired for advancement. When Apple came out with the first iPod, the growth of technology never halted, and its impact is obvious as seen through our reliance on access to both information and music, at the click of a button.  

    What started as an idea for an MP3 player that could be easily transported and personal became later became the iPod we know today. When Apple began developing the technology, the company, like many others in Silicone Valley, valued secrecy around the revolutionary product. Since very few people besides the iPod's creators knew about the device and its functions there is not too much information on how the idea of a handheld MP3 developed into the first generation iPod that hit the market in 2001, but the up-and-coming, competitive company wanted to top their last product: the Macintosh computer. The design of the iPod was very small compared to popular tech devices at the time, but its design was very complex. The iPod incorporated several different aspects of other devices to work on such a small scale, so Apple had to work with other companies to develop certain parts. A new hard drive, processor, and batteries were just some of the parts that Apple had to rethink for the product to be successful.  

📱(Check out this video for a great look into Apple's developments! 📱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUDo2Ugw1n8)

    As the video above explains, Apple wanted to project the iPod into the market in 2001 because of how big of a gap there was in personal, portable technology. Not only did they grow tremendously in popularity among the public, but their company was now significantly ahead of other competitors. One of the most impressive features of the first generation iPod which set Apple apart from the rest was its large storage capabilities of 1,000 songs for the small size of the device considering the technology at the time. 

    One of the most important things to ponder when looking into the history of such a historical device is how the first iPod gave the technology industry so much momentum to improve. Though its technology at that time was impressive, it may be even more so when you look at how much change the device inspired. That one device in 2001 has led to the mindset we have in today's society that there is always a need for innovation and improvement. After the first iPod, Apple didn't just settle with making minor fixes to the product which was already generating hundreds of dollars in revenue with each purchase, but they focused on making larger strides of improvement with each new generation of the device that Apple released. Apple didn't continue to promote the iPod as it was, but they added more gigabytes of storage while making the device more compact, a longer battery life, and several other functions. Even with all of these advancements, Apple did not stop. After several different versions of the first iPod with minor improvements, they completely redesigned the product to look more appealing, contain more functions, and draw the attention of even more consumers. It is evident that since the beginning of their company and especially the release of the first iPod in 2001, that Apple's mission is for improvement. So even though the iPod may not be the most life-changing invention in-of itself, I believe that its invention has sparked so much of the competitive mindset our world of technology has today. The iPod propelled the use of smartphones as we know them, which can be seen in so many industries. Everyone wants innovation, no matter what the subject is, and Apple has been a power player in people's drive for newer and better technology. 

📍Looking further 📍

Here are some helpful links if you are interested in looking further into the first iPod:

• https://itstillworks.com/ipod-made-1848.html
• https://www.macworld.com/article/1163181/the-birth-of-the-ipod.html