Time To Say Goodbye

As this is my final post, I would like to reflect on my posts and what I have learned. While most of my posts are negative and identify the threats of censorship and social media, I would like to make this clear that I do not think that technology is bad. However, we do need to be cautious of anything new.

Am I addicted to my phone...?

I think I am very reliant on my phone. Without it, I would not wake up on time, nor would I know what time it was. I would not remember any phone numbers or even my social security number. Analyzing the threats of technology has taught me to reflect on my own experience with the impact. 

I will say that after researching and having a better understanding of the impact of social media, I now do not use it as much. I have studied the threats to society through social media platforms and it scared me. Clearly, it has not scared me enough because I still use it occasionally. I would be lying if I didn't say that my life is making it impossible to get off of technology. If I continue on the career path that I am on, I need to know my way around social media. However, I am now better off as I recognize the impacts that technology has on my life. 

Are you addicted to your phone...?

Let's be honest here. Most of you are addicted to your phones. According to Reviews.org, 75.4% of Americans are addicted to their phones. You might not know it and you might be like me, you don't want to admit it. The fact is that you are addicted to technology and love that you can carry your device with you, wherever you go. Sometimes you might put it down or leave it at home, but you recognize when it is gone and you may even panic.

Our society has made us become addicted to our phones, social media, and all technology because it has proven to be very useful. We should always recognize our need to rely on such a new advancement. This doesn't mean we should stop using technology, it just means that we should be cautious and realistic of potential threats.

What is your digital footprint?

When I was growing up, my parents were a little later to the game than most of my friends' parents. That meant that I didn't get an iPhone until eighth grade (which is still very early). Once getting a phone, I was at liberty to do as I pleased. My parents always emphasized the need to post content that was appropriate and nothing less. 

Who actually listened to that?

Of course, I posted things that were embarrassing but luckily, not illegal. After high school and four years of college, I have tried everything possible to make my online presence personal but acceptable to an employer. After Google-ing myself, I think I did a great job. People always make mistakes. If I were to go into politics or become a celebrity, I may have to try harder to clean up my digital footprint. For what I want to do and who I want to be, I am at peace with how my footprint reflects who I truly am. Don't be naive to the publicity of your personal internet data. It is out there and is able to be accessed very easily. 

To all who took the time to read my posts, thank you. I have enjoyed the ability to write out my thoughts and contribute to the marketplace of ideas. This platform has allowed me to present ideas that are polarizing societies. In this space, I wanted to spark thought and reflection. I hope that one day, we can all share our ideas without the fear of isolation (or being canceled). I am excited for the day when we all have the ability to share the good, the bad, the silly, and the questionable. As John Mill would say... the truth will prevail. I hope we can discuss all ideas with an open mind, a respectful thought process, and cognitive responses that encourage the formation of further ideas. 

Let's Talk About The "P" Word

We know that the "P" word is not appropriate to talk about in most social settings. The government even suppresses the use of this term. Social media typically censors the use of the "P" word. Going along with the theme of this blog, I am going to discuss supressed topics, openly.

The Impact of The "P" Word on Society

Propaganda was used heavily during World Wars I and II. It was used to leverage the fear of war to motivate people to buy war bonds and join the pro-war effort. During these times, anti-war voices were heavily supressed in all aspects of life. 

Efforts to use fear to persuade an audience are present today. In some of the most recent efforts to push propaganda, social media users created graphics and pushed messages to spark fear in an audience to wear a mask to stop the spread of COVID-19. Messages induced fear and forced people to make a decision. As propaganda can be both positive and negative, it all serves the purpose of leading people to think a certain way. 

Often when we think of propagonda, we think of it in the negative. In this case, it is considered as deceptive advertising. With the intent to mislead an audience, deceptive content creates mistrust and a polarizing environment. Misleading content is also known as disinformation. People vary over time in their trust in the government, news media, social media, and others around them. We saw a spike in distrust in these organizations during the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic due to instances where these channels participated in the spread of disinformation. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find credible sources and credible content. 

Be sure to fact check before believing and often expose yourself to opposing ideas!

Do You Consider Yourself A Private Person?

I asked myself this question. My original answer was, yes, I am a private person. Then I watched Juan Enriquez's TED Talk, Your Online Life, Permanent As A Tattoo. In the internet age, a truly private person is hard to find. Most of us have a digital footprint and most of us share some form of data on the internet. You may not be on social media but you most likely have an email, use search engines, etc. 

What you think is PRIVATE is actually PUBLIC.

Anything on the internet that is, "free," means that YOU are actually the product. The internet is collecting each move that you make online to create an online profile of who you are. The data is used to track what you do, predict what you will do, and motivate you to do something. 

For example, you have a big event coming up and you are looking to buy an outfit. You start by searching for some brown shoes. The internet has now picked up that you want to buy brown shoes. Then, you begin to click on websites like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus. The internet now knows your price range, what you want to buy, and has an idea of where you want to buy it. Internet service providers like Google and Amazon, then sell that information to retail outfitters or advertising agencies, who sell brown shoes online. Paid advertisements and website links begin to prioritize through your search engine. Then suddenly, the perfect pair of brown shoes pop up while you are scrolling through your Facebook feed. You click on the advertisement and click purchase. You now have a pair of shoes, for your event, arriving in the mail within two to three business days. 

You probably did not know that your clicks were being counted or that the time you spend on each site was being monitored. All of that data was being collected to guide you to purchase a pair of shoes and it made you think that you found them on your own. Now you know that the only decision you made on your own, was to open up your computer. 

What is the problem?

The fact that you are able to shop faster and filter out a lot of the garbage on the internet is not really a problem. Some find it "creepy" but most are content with the idea. The problem lies in the ability of your data to be used to manipulate and control your internet activity. This online manipulation soon leads to offline control over your behaviors. 

We all want to be able to say that we got where we are in life, on our own. The fact of the matter is that there have been experiences and algorithms shaping our lives. It is important to be aware that your private online interactions are able to become public, without you knowing or giving conscious consent.

Entering the Spiral of Silence

With about 62 percent of people having an online presence, we cannot ignore the growing importance of the internet. Just over twenty years ago, only around one percent of people were using the internet. In only two decades, the world has created a new public square, where people have the ability to influence cultures, the economy, politics, and society. With any new innovation, there are positives and negatives that accompany this new era.

This article aims to discuss the Spiral of Silence theory in the context of the modern internet age.

What is the Spiral of Silence Theory?

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann identified the Spiral of Silence theory, in 1972. She then published literature that allowed the theory to become public knowledge, in 1974. Noelle-Neumann wrote that the theory explained how people silence themselves when they believe that they possess an unfavored opinion. The theory relies on the concept that the silencing effect creates the fear of isolation. 

Spiral of Silence Theory in Modern Society

The topic of social media censorship has been a headline in the news, especially over the last year. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the media has the right to delete content and ban users for violating the platform's guidelines. The current problem is surrounding the increasing power to control public opinion by private media corporations. The content-based and unjust censorship attempts, by the media, are currently shaping public opinion inorganically. 

The Spiral of Silence theory can be used to help measure and describe the impact of social media censorship on shaping public opinion. Media corporations have publically proven that they have more power than all private citizens, the United States government, and state actors. The censorship attempts by big media outlets and social media platforms continue to influence societal attitudes and beliefs. 

Research has shown that when social media users perceive that they possess an unpopular opinion, they will refrain from voicing their thoughts with the fear of being isolated from their communities, both online and offline. The Spiral of Silence theory suggests that, if the media are censoring mostly right-wing voices, the conservative viewpoint will rarely be perceived as the popular opinion, even if true. A 2018 study proved that, therefore, the majority of right-wing users are going to silence their own speech in fear of being the minority voice and getting censored.

A study by the Pew Research Center, in 2014, proved that social media has the potential to increase the prominence of the favored opinion. The study also determined that the silencing effect was elevated on social media, compared to offline discussions. On social media, users can have a false awareness of the popular opinion due to content-based voices being censored. Platforms' censorship acts are able to legally silence political and symbolic speech which leaves the remaining voices to create a false perception of the popular public viewpoint. 

The Spiral of Silence theory explains how social media censorship increases the silencing effect by manipulating the flow of information, restricting access to information, and falsifying users' perspectives of public sentiment.

Example of the Modern Day Silencing Effect

Members of Congress would never suppress my speech... right?

On February 22, 2021, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Jerry McNerney sent twelve networks' CEOs a letter. 

List of the cable and satellite providers addressed:

• Hulu, LLC (Hulu + Live TV)

• Altice USA (Optimum, Suddenlink)

• Alphabet, Inc. (YouTube TV, Google Play Store)

• Cox Communications, Inc. 

• Dish Network (SlingTV)

• Charter Communications, Inc. (Spectrum)

• Comcast Corporation (Xfinity)

• Apple, Inc. (Apple TV, App Store)

• Amazon.com Inc. (Amazon Fire TV)

• Roku, Inc.

• Verizon Communications (Fios TV)

• AT&T, Inc. (U-verse, DirecTV, AT&T TV)

Why are the letters important?

In the letters, Eshoo and McNerney addressed each service provider and asserted that "right-wing media ecosystems," are easily persuaded by fake news. They requested, "additional information about what actions (provider) is taking to address these issues... (provider) plays a major role in the spread of dangerous misinformation that enabled the insurrection of January 6th and hinders our public health response to the current pandemic."

Members of Congress are coercing cable and satellite providers to remove ring-wing news outlets (Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News) from being able to be accessed through their services. If Members of Congress can get the largest network providers to silence four of the most popular news outlets on cable TV, they can easily use that same power to silence all other views and outlets. If the public does not have fair access to cable TV, from all political perspectives, this would be an incredible threat to society. This IS an incredible threat to society...

If these network providers concede, right-wing media and citizens will not have the means to exercise the freedom to petition the government, freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech.

Elected officials and private media corporations are using their political and economic power to elevate the impact of the silencing effect. Through their use of intimidation tactics and overbroad content-based censorship, the general public has now lost control of voicing or accessing differing views. Users can either choose to self-censor or be censored as a result of voicing an unfavored viewpoint.

If Noelle-Neumann were still alive today, she would most likely emphasize the abuse of power being used to control public opinion on social media. She would then remind us that the Spiral of Silence theory has been explaining the impact of what many are just now realizing, since 1974. Even though we have had access to her research, we ignored her knowledge of the type of power that could be held by media technologies and the ability to manipulate how we think and what we think about.

Diffusion of the Facebook Innovation

Let's begin with a brief overview of how Facebook became an innovation. Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook in 2004 as an exclusive platform for Harvard University students to connect online. Within a few years, the platform quickly began to expand and became a global platform. Facebook was created to connect the world and create a global community. 

How did Facebook grow so fast?

Facebook, as an innovation, grew rapidly across the board. The platform has many pros and cons, that I will discuss based on each category of innovation adopters. I will explain how each group adopted the innovation through the Diffusion Theory.

Five categories of adopters: 

• Pioneers

• Early Adopters

• Early Majority

• Late Majority

• Laggards

The innovation has reached each group in a unique way. The different adopters receive information and appeal to messages that are tailored to each specific group. The process for spreading this innovation paused at each category of adopter in chronological order.

Pioneers

Pioneers, sometimes known as "innovators" are the first to adopt an innovation. This group of adopters is the smallest out of the five commonly discussed within the theory. This group is always the first to try new innovations. Pioneers have a strong drive to want to share their experiences with their community. They are responsible for demonstrating, to future adopters, the benefits of adopting a new innovation. 

Pioneers could be considered as the first Harvard University students who had access to the original version of Facebook in 2004. The platform appealed to pioneers because it was exclusive and created a narrow community. It allowed users to share their lives and experiences easily, within a new online universe. Pioneers adopted this innovation because it promoted easy communication, and was exclusive to their demographic, making them feel special. Since pioneers are known to be "adventurous," they dove right into the adoption of Facebook with no hesitation. They were eager to learn and explore the newly created online world. This group did not deny the adoption of Facebook because they only saw benefits to using the platform. They saw no downside to being able to share experiences and connect with others through an internet platform.

Early Adopters

Early adopters are the second smallest group. While small, they are very important in setting the tone for how innovations will be adopted in the future. They are considered to be opinion leaders who have the ability to convince the early majority to adopt an innovation. 

This group, in reference to the spread of Facebook, would be the second wave to adopt Facebook. They were most likely the Harvard students who were skeptical, at first, but were quickly persuaded. They also could be considered as students or individuals in late 2004, early 2005, who quickly adopted the innovation after the poineers. Early adopters were motivated to quickly adopt Facebook because of their need for communication and expression of their opinions. They believe their opinion is very important and used Facebook to disseminate their thoughts. Facebook appealed to this group due to the ability to increase the number of relationships, connections, and methods of communication. The only hesitation that held this group back from being the first adopters, was the limitation that Facebook was exclusive to Harvard students during the first year. After the platform became open to the public, early adopters quickly accepted the innovation.

Early Majority

The early majority were the third wave of adopters of Facebook. This group hesitates to adopt innovations as they want to see the benefits of adopting the innovation. They tend to observe how the previous groups use the technology. The early majority are older than the early adopters and innovators. They will adopt innovations once they are convinced that the technology will benefit their lives.

During the creation of Facebook, the early majority were inclined to adopt the use of Facebook after the early adopters had used it for a sufficient amount of time. The platform was appealing to this group because it was proven to have the ability to increase global connections. This was important, as the early majority demographic valued the ability to maximize their business potential and have the capacity to expand internationally. The early majority saw the benefit of being able to quickly access and spread information. The increased flow of information was due to the ability of the average user to act as a journalist, reporting from across the world. The group also values their family and the community, of which Facebook helps the individual to connect easily. The early majority were hesitant to adopt Facebook without identifying the advantages of the platform. They were cautious but not completely reluctant to accept the newly introduced technology.

Late Majority

The late majority tend to be more resistant to change. They are typically skeptical of new innovations and wait to adopt them until they are widely used and tested. They are nearing the end of a traditional career and are not always up-to-date on the latest innovations. While skeptical, they are vulnerable to the impact of peer pressure. The late majority follow the adoption of innovations by the early majority. The group is one of the largest groups, along with the early majority. 

Hesitations to adopt Facebook could have been due to historical trauma and lack of technological knowledge. This demographic was impacted by the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and an economic crisis. These major historical events potentially caused the late majority to be skeptical of society and often resist the urge to change. Facebook became appealing to this group when it proved to be a way to become more involved in one's own community. This group wanted to be able to share their life with family and close friends. With the need to fit in and become a user of the widely used platform, the late majority would be more inclined to adopt the innovation after some time.

Laggards

Laggards are typically the last group to adopt an innovation. This group may even resist adopting the innovation altogether. They are extremely resistant to change in all aspects of society. Laggards can be difficult to reach, in terms of marketing because they tend to limit themselves to traditional media outlets. This group will only adopt an innovation once it has been accepted by the majority of society for a substantial amount of time. 

Facebook eventually became appealing to a portion of laggards due to the emphasis to join from family members or close friends. Laggards were hesitant to adopt this innovation because they don't see much benefit from sharing personal information. They also had privacy concerns and most were unfamiliar with how the platform worked. Facebook's adaptations have made the platform more appealing to this generation or adopters, by making it easier to use. Facebook also became attractive to laggards when they recognized it created an easier way to connect with their children, grandchildren, and close friends. While many laggards have adopted the platform, the majority of the group do not rely on Facebook as much as other groups.

Where on the model do you stand?

What could Facebook have done to speed up the diffusion process? 

Where does today's society stand in the willingness to adopt Facebook?

The Power Is In YOUR Hands

Technological innovators used to be limited to only the rich and powerful. Times have changed.

As technology advances, the power to innovate has shifted to now be in the hands of the people. Thanks to advances like the telephone, computer, and internet, we are able to access more information. With the increased access to information, anyone has the ability to innovate. Innovations used to take much longer than they do in the modern era. Technology creates a more efficient life while also posing threats to civil society. 

Some technological devices have gone out of fashion. However, those devices have helped to continue the evolution of technology. 

The printing press led to the innovation of computers and printers. The invention of computers then led to personal laptops.

The telephone led to the invention of the cellphone and eventually to the iPhone. 

The development of the radio led to the invention of cable television, DVDs, and then led to the creation of Netflix.  

As technology continued to advance, the internet was invented. Followed by websites and social media were able to be created. 

Many of the beginning technologies like the carrier pigeon, printing press, and the telephone, are not often used during the modern age. However, the advancements to original technologies continue to grow. An interesting difference from the original communications technologies to modern advancements is that common people now have more ability to innovate. Private individuals have become millionaires by turning a website into a form of media used by the entire globe. 

Technological Adaptations:

• Portable devices
• More tools available in each device
• Compact sizes
• Increased efficiency

With more access to information, we are able to increase our innovation efforts. As long as there is always free access to information, we will continue to advance in technology and communication efforts. 

First Amendment Interpretation in the Context of Social Media Censorship

What is the First Amendment? 

The First Amendment provides United States citizens with six freedoms. The freedom of religion, the freedom from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to petition the government, and freedom of assembly. 

Free Speech Debate

Discussions of reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 are taking place due to the increasing problem of censorship in relation to free speech. 

 

47 U.S.C. Section 230 (c)(1) establishes that social media platforms and services cannot be punished for the content on their platform because they cannot be held to the same scrutiny as that of a publisher. Section 230 (c)(2) grants permission to social media platforms and services to moderate what content is allowed on the platform through censorship and content moderation algorithms. 

 

Viewpoint 1: Section 230 Reform

One side of the debate wants to reform 47 U.S.C. Section 230, restricting media platforms’ ability to censor users. This reform calls for increased accountability to be held toward the social media platforms for their responsibility of societal impact. The reform would also allow all types of legal speech without the threat of censorship. Users would be allowed to participate in the free discussion as is stated through the Marketplace of Ideas theory, proposed by John Stuart Mill. 

 

With an increasing generation of misinformation, fake accounts, and censorship actions, the public is becoming frustrated with the media’s handling of these issues. Those in favor of reform want to stop censorship as they feel targeted due to their political viewpoint and are disappointed with the lack of due process when censored. 

 

Viewpoint 2: Maintain Section 230

An opposing view to Section 230 reform, aims to maintain the law, as it is written. This argument is backed by private corporation statutes that grant private actors First Amendment rights. Those arguing this point, reference the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case of 1886 that established “corporate personhood,” allowing corporations the same First Amendment protections as those of private individuals.  

 

Those in favor of this argument believe that private corporations should maintain their special rights. They argue that changing the current statute would disrupt the current organization of the corporate business. We would then have to distinguish a new meaning for private corporations. 

 

How should we interpret Section 230 and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

For modern-day interpretation, in the context of social media and free speech, research points to the precedent case of Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938) where the Supreme Court ruled that individuals do not need permission to distribute and publish information. The court’s decision was based on a negative notion, that requirements to obtaining a permit would make speech vulnerable to censorship. The case highlighted the Supreme Court’s disapproval of censorship of speech, during this time period.

 

Section 230(c)(2) reform would clarify the way that the Supreme Court should interpret modern cases involving social media censorship. There are variations of interpretations of the First Amendment in regard to social media issues. The court should interpret the First Amendment, specifically, freedom of speech and to the press, as the right to express freely within the limits of legal speech. The court should reference Lovell v. City of Griffin when interpreting the law. Therefore, social media platforms would not have the right to censor users nor their content based on vague restrictions, set by private individuals. Legal speech should be allowed and encouraged in order to allow users to have access to information, to opposing ideologies, and to publicly express one’s opinion. Interpretation of the law should be based on historical court cases and the context of the modern era.