Bingo on Nov 1

Dear all -- This game is meant to help you foster critical thinking skills and develop deeper understanding of theoretical linkages among key concepts covered in the class. Moreover, it is designed to help you prepare for the exam in a fun and intellectually stimulating way. I hope you enjoy and benefit from the game!

1. Please form a group between 1 to 3 members 
2. Fill out your group's Bingo card using the numbers assigned on the review sheet: http://emac4372f16.blogspot.com/2016/10/exam-review-sheet.html
3. Random.org will choose the numbers.  Each group has 10 seconds to prepare and give their two-part answer:
• Explain your assigned concept
• Explain, or make up an example that showcases, how your assigned concept relates to the previous concept 
• There are likely different ways to explain the same concept. Feel free to elaborate on the previous term as to make a case for your proposed linkage between the two concepts
4. Dr. Lee will determine whether the answers are satisfactory, but the class may be invited to vote on contested answers
5.  First group to get a straight line (vertical, horizontal or diagonal) wins
• The winning group gets +1 in in-class exercise

p.s. Feel free to bring your laptop/tablet and lecture notes for today's exercise

Exam Review Sheet

This list is drawn from all the powerpoints and is meant to help you prepare for the exam, but to do well on the exam, you are responsible for studying with your lecture notes.

1. Lasswell's model of communication
2. Positivist ontology
3. Social constructivist ontology
4. Inoculation
5. Descriptive norms
6. Injunctive norms
7. Cialdini's 6 ways to influence people
8. Framing
9. Gain frame
10. Loss frame
11. Episodic frame
12. Thematic frame
13. Prospect theory
14. Selective exposure
15. Cognitive dissonance
16. Mood management theory
17. Confirmation bias
18. Selective perception
19. Selective retention
20. Polarization
21. Badder-Meinhof phenomenon
22. Reinforcement theory
23. Fixed mindset
24. Growth mindset 
25. Lasswell's propaganda theory
26. Lippmann's "pictures in our heads"
27. Powerful media effects
28. Magic bullet theory
29. Hypodermic needle theory
30. Experiments with "Why we fight" films
31. Limited media effects
32. "War of the worlds"
33. "The people's choice"
34. Two-step flow theory
35. Uses and gratifications paradigm
36. Moderate-to-powerful effects
37. Search Engine Manipulation Effect    
38. 1st level agenda-setting
39. Accessibility
40. 2nd level agenda-setting
41. Who sets the media's agenda?
42. Agenda-setting theory's problems
43. Agenda-cutting
44. Priming
45. Embodied cognition
46. Semantic network
47. "Buying the war"
48. Framing & President Bush's address
49. Failure of the press during 9/11
50. Third-person perception & its implications
51. Self-enhancement bias
52. First-person perception & its implications
53. Spiral of silence
54. Spiral of silence and social media
55. Your proposals to minimize the spiral
56. Brene Brown's "Power of vulnerability"
57. Speed and contemporary life
58. New technology and quality of life
59. Jon Jandai's "Life is easy"
60. Connections & addiction
61. Upward comparison
62. Downward comparison
63. Sherry Turkle's "Connected, but alone"
64. Goldilocks effect
65. Smiling depression
66. PostSecret
67. Humans of New York
68. Privacy and contemporary life
69. Glenn greenwald's "Why privacy matters"
70. Reidentification
71. Data pollution
72. Target's big data analysis
73. G-male, Siri, and singularity
74. Limits of codes & programming
75. Michael Sandel's trolley problems
76. Jason Warner and "Alice"
77. Link between e-waste and cybercrime

Can data be biased? We must ask the origin of data first?

At one time, I felt safe to say that data was very absolute. That it tells unbiased story and that people should accept its value as factual rather than theoretical. My choice at that time to not really ask questions  because it was just too much effort  to try to get an answer  that was much more important than the truth. It was a ban-aid but it helped me to get t where I am now. Data can be very useful. I use it everyday to assessed if my posts are actually contributing to a following for my company's social media platforms. For FB and Instagram which is now owned by FB, to use data,  its seems logical. To collect data without consumers being aware of it and to then to profit with physical value (tangible evidence) without the  consumers knowing then its unethical to me . To collect data to manipulate consumers is a very fine line. I am not going to lie, I am  a marketing specialist, I am faced with this decision on a daily basis. I want to collect data  and use it in identifying  patterns to enhance my company's following. To perform  this task, I will have to collect data, does this mean  I will have to reach out to all of my followers directly to gather the data collectively and build an analysis to direct or redirect my company's social media following?  This seems illogical. So I have to ask myself , how would other companies deal with these types of questions, especially those that have a following of thousands.
Collecting data to manipulate consumers is very grey right now for me.  I will need to target audiences so demographics re involved, so therefore one could say the use of social biased can be acceptable. This is where the line becomes grey. I would never call my target a monkey, or someone that lives in a jungle, however if my company;s target is a low income single parent home  and data shows that its an african american  single woman household, would it not be logical to feature that on an ad? This is where data can be perceived as biased..well the use of data, but my intentions is yo target an audience  no matter what race, it is  the attention retainer I am concern about ?
the decisions we faced with the collection of data is really about how we use it, do you agree?

Don't Rule out the Underdog: How Instagram is Catching Up

While reading all these articles that discuss the "competition" between Amazon, Google, and Facebook, I was reminded of all the drama surrounding Instagram a few months ago when they decided to completely change their algorithm.

In 2012, Facebook bought Instagram for approximately $1 billion. Ever since this merger, Facebook has only been making slight changes to the widely-popular app without completely transforming the platform. That all ended when a few months ago, Instagram announced that it would be showing posts that they think users would like, based off their activity. This instantly caused riots on the social media app, especially for those considered "Instagram famous." Why? It was believed that these suggested posts would show up in the user's feed, and the user would have to turn on notifications to see a particular user's post. Since most bloggers use Instagram to promote new posts on their site and to draw in new readers, this new update meant big problems.

In the end all the chaos surrounding the update turned out to be pointless. The new update only applied to the "search" section on the app and not the actual newsfeed. Meaning if a user goes to the search section, the app makes "suggestions" based off of your friends likes and your recent activity. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Instagram makes the leap to "in feed" suggestions like Facebook does now. With the innovation on Instagram "stories" (Instagram's take on Snapchat), it doesn't look to far off...

Power and Influence

Tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google have an uncomfortable amount of power in our society. Data mining is woven into the fabric of our economy.

It influences the news and information we receive and what is shared about us. Mouse clicks influence opportunities for jobs, medical care, and even social engagement.

Algorithms can determine whether we do or do not get a call for a job interview. A person may not get that life saving ambulance ride because their address didn't make the cut on profitability. We may miss the opportunity to hear an inspiring speaker or discover a brilliant artist if our algorithm doesn't align. But the most frightening thing of all, is the control of our news exposure and the silencing of our voices.

When information is funneled, we simply don't know what we don't know. When we are afraid to ask questions or search for information for any reason, we lose an opportunity for growth, as individuals and a nation.

Google, Amazon and Facebook are considered monopolies by many. If we are a nation controlled and influenced by monopolies, will we grow and innovate, or we will widen the socioeconomic chasm already present in our country? In a nation where the rich gets richer, what happens to the middle? What happens to the poorest among us?

What you see isn't always the truth

Society puts so much faith in technology, and it’s easy to understand why. We want to work smarter, not harder. When it comes to problem-solving, we want to produce the most efficient solution that requires the least amount of extra work on our part- one that minimizes or eliminates human error. Without much scrutiny, it often seems like technology provides the solution we want. I can always trust that my scientific calculator will compute an equation faster and more correctly than I can on my own. I think we tend to think of all technologies with the same reverence as a calculator- as innovative devices that somehow transcend human errors and fault.

In actuality, my calculator isn’t perfect. It will only compute correct answers if, on my end, I give it the correct information to solve a problem with accuracy. If I slip up and provide the wrong value, or use an incorrect function, the calculator will give me an incorrect answer.  Just because technology has the capacity to operate without influence from human error does not negate its susceptibility to human error. A technological advancement put forth by a society plagued by prominent discrimination towards minority groups is inevitably going to reflect those biases.

It is very important not to assume that technology produces and presents bias-free data, because that is simply untrue.  Especially as technological advancements progress in the future, people need to be mindful of the fact that no device or software can truly supersede the flaws of the people who create it. 

Social Bias and Technology

In How Social Bias Creeps Into We Technology  Elizabeth Dowiski mentions a study that found that Google ads were biased when showing high-paying jobs, showing more jobs to male users than female users. Before reading this article, I had a mindset that technology could not possibly be bias towards people because the algorithms and code behind a certain technology could not possibly have stereotypes and prejudice within it's code.

If we are now seeing bias behavior within technology, then we must take into consideration what our behavior is online so that websites and programs that are tracking and collecting our data, have an appropriate image of who we are. Although the internet is a tool that we use to connect with others, to learn, etc. it has, in my opinion, also become another platform where we are to market ourselves and create our personal brand to potential employers, universities, friends, businesses, etc. If we are to now see social bias within our technologies, then we must continue to be aware of what we are communicating to others by the websites we click, the photos we share, and the things we buy, because whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, we are all now being categorized by our online actions.

Social Bias in Web Technology

There has been many recorded incidents where newly, found technology involving algorithms have created biasness within our social media platforms. Computer based software has generated automatic tagging in social media photos for instance, sometimes tagging essentially a black person as a gorilla. This software system has created more of a biasness amongst us than ever before. We already deal with racial and sexist issues in our society in general, but now as technology advances it is creating more of a rift between us. These systems can even cut out certain web surfers, to where only ideal web surfers can see certain information exposed on the web such as job listens for only certain applicants. Advances in technology are suppose to essentially cut this out, creating more of a smooth operating system, not prejudice. I believe that when it comes to corporations and certain businesses, this certain operating system runs in their favor. They have certain prejudice motives to where they want certain ideal candidates. For instance it is like when you shop at a certain online store, anywhere else you surf online it is going to show you certain online advertisements for that particular store. The companies of course want that because its a reminder to the people who already shop there, not just technology working for you.

Can Facebook Fall?

After reading the article, "Facebook's Fatal Weakness" I can't agree more with the author's grievances with the platform. Like Google, Amazon, and Apple, Facebook is a digital behemoth and is used by most people who actively use the internet for social media. However, unlike its tech counterparts, Facebook is particularly notorious for not pertaining to its users needs. Time and time again the company confirms that their primary goal is ad revenue even if that goal is a detriment to user satisfaction.
Despite its backwards rhetoric, Facebook continues to maintain its widely active user base. This arises a question, can this Social Media Monopoly be toppled? What past examples can we learn from?
Back in 2012, we did see a new social media app unlike anything before it that started to chip away at Facebook's user base, however, this success was moot after Facebook purchased the photo sharing app for $1.3 Billion. The only independent social media platforms that still stand to chip away at their numbers would be Snapchat and Twitter. While there are a myriad of other platforms, Twitter and Snapchat are the only two that have a significant number dedicated non-facebook users. Regardless the platforms likely will not be able to pose a serious threat to the mighty Facebook as their platforms are not as dynamic and Twitter especially has had difficulty capitalizing on its platforms success.
We all remember when the original major social platform MySpace was suddenly toppled by Facebook's far superior platform. Its possible that in the future another college start up could tackle the beast that is Facebook but until that time comes, we will continue incessantly checking our feeds and posting our status again and again.

What Comes After Facebook? (10/27)

While reading the Salon article about Facebook's faults, I found myself wondering what the next best thing might be. The fact that Facebook sees itself as more of a news aggregate than a social network is somewhat shocking and something I hadn't heard about until now. In an age of overwhelming advertising, this makes sense. Its obviously easier to make money off of clickbait-y ads than your friend's birthday party pictures. But still, if Facebook is not willing to uphold the standard of being the almighty social network we thought it would be all these years, what is? Twitter is too fragmented and overrun with ads (to the point where its mobile app is almost unusable), Snapchat and Instagram are too single service, and everything else hasn't yet been widely adopted by such a large swath of the world's population. While the transition from MySpace to Facebook felt seamless, MySpace was nowhere near as embedded in everything we see and do on the internet. So many other sites and apps rely on Facebook integration. Facebook is built into the infrastructure of our daily lives as our modern day town square. It's no longer a craze – it's an institution, which means maybe there is no "next Facebook." While Zuckerberg himself says Facebook will never become a "media outlet" in the traditional sense because they will never produce content, maybe the definition of media outlet needs updating. Maybe Facebook isn't strictly a media outlet or a social network, but something new entirely. Imaging a post-Facebook world now seems impossible, but as the author of the Salon article notes, so did imagining a post-Microsoft world in the '90s. Only time will tell.

Giants behaving badly: Google, Facebook and Amazon show us the downside of monopolies and black-box algorithms

After reading the article “Giants behaving badly: Google, Facebook and Amazon show us the downside of monopolies and black-box algorithms” by Mathew Ingram, I thought about the discussion we had in class Tuesday. We were given situations, voted and discussed if they were acceptable, unacceptable, or dependent. This article looks at three internet giants, Amazon, Google, and Facebook, and talks about recent times these companies have exposed their power. The article claims that each of these companies is monopolizes, or are doing something to monopolize the product. After reading each recent activity, I thought to myself, is this acceptable, unacceptable, or dependent on other factors?

The first post was on amazon, and how they use their power, to get better deals with book sellers. They make it difficult to find certain books, possibly based on the deals they have with those companies. The article discusses how some believe this is no different than physical stores doing the same things, in order to get better deals on product. However, it makes it even more difficult when the item isn’t physically able to be found. In this situation I find it dependent on a number of factors. Though the article gives a good argument, on how this should be deemed illegal, it seems that Amazon is simply using the laws put in place to their advantage. I would need more information on the deals, and how often this happens, in order to say I believe the action to be unacceptable. The next post talked about google, and their powerful algorithm they use. It discussed a case where a company suffered form an updated algorithm. This company relied on google for customers, and the new update forced their link down multiple pages. The company blamed google, however google denied this happened purposefully, and couldn’t explain how the new algorithm did this. I find this case acceptable, as I doubt google changed their entire algorithm in order to destroy this one company. There are other ways to succeed without google, and though it shouldn’t be on google to have that large of an impact, it seems google did something to improve their own brand, and unknowingly hurt another. The final post was on Facebook, and how their algorithm helps pave the way for users to view certain posts. This seems to be the most unacceptable, however I still believe it is dependent on other factors. Facebook shouldn’t be using code to have people view certain things over others. However it is just as much on the user, to avoid things they don’t want to see. Also there are a number of other platforms that could be used, if Facebook isn’t giving you proper content.

In the end the article discusses ways to avoid these companies, but in fact these companies are unavoidable. They are the gold standard, and use their power accordingly. This is no different than any other giant company, it just happens to be internet based, which most believe should be free. What I gained from this article, and class discussion, is there is a lot of grey area in these scenarios. They are dependent on a number of things, and though they seem intrusive, it is a matter of how the companies use these advantages.

I'm not ignorant, I'm just lazy

The title says it all. When it comes to privacy online, I'm perfectly aware of how much my data is being thrown around. I'm a senior in EMAC, I've heard every side to every case to every detail of how we are always being watched and how all of our data is being used across the world in mining expeditions all localized in my smart phone. I'm aware, but I really don't care. McCauley found that millennials might share more, but they still care about privacy. Of course I care about privacy, I don't want anyone knowing my passwords or my bank account info, but I'm really not super bothered by data miners knowing how many FaceBook friends I have or how many links I post. It's a little creepy, but I go at it from a broad standpoint. They're looking at millions of people, so my data is not being scrutinized super closely. It's data. That's it.

Sure, there are days where I take a FaceBook quiz and will go through the "What I am sharing with this website" checklist and uncheck nearly everything because I feel like I need to, but 9/10 times I just leave it alone. And every single quiz I take, I have that thought in the back of my mind. "They're data mining, your privacy is being breached, be weirded out!" but in reality, I just care about what President I supposedly look like (I got Obama lol). I know it's a bad mindset, but I simply don't see the harm in it. Until it is proven to me that the data they're mining for will seriously hurt me in some way, I don't care. Mine away.

Social bias and Technology

In the article written by Elizabeth Dowskin she mentions "In the type of image-tagging programs used by Google and others, software learns to distinguish people in photos by finding common patterns in millions of images of people." 

Given that the computer's capabilities are limited to what it is being told to do through its coding and language, how can we expect our facial detection to be completely unbiased? Since there's diversity in humans and similarity amongst certain races, it only makes sense to be objectified to a certain pattern when image detection comes in place. In fact, I have been objectified to look similar to one of my friends on Facebook through its image detection feature. Every time I would post a photo of myself, Facebook automatically thinks its my friend. So, would that be considered as a bias in coding in Facebook's image detection software or just a similarity amongst facial features/coincidence? 

Lastly, If social bias can occur in between your job search results, its only apparent it'll show in your online buying behavior. If you think about it, when we're on Facebook we see advertisements about various products from different shops which naturally influences us to look at their products in depth and see their ratings and most of the times those ratings are 5/5. How can we be so sure that the ratings aren't thrown in by marketers or hired professionals for you to buy the product more? That within itself is a bias that we unconsciously forget about as we're completely struck by the beauty of the product. 

Terrifying spectre of complete comfort

There is a solution to all of the problems listed in the various articles for this week's reading.

Get off of the internet.

The fact remains that google, amazon, or facebook can't retrieve information that you don't willfully give them. That's why you "agree" to their terms of service when you create an account, and the document is 600 pages long, so you don't read it. You are pseudo-participating in their surveillance for the purposes of their advertising and marketing interests.

That's the way it works in America. The media perpetuates a "keep up with the Joneses" mindset, so that everyone wants the latest phone, the nicest car, the "best" of this and that, etc. and makes it readily available through the racket of credit purchases. They don't care what you buy, as long as you don't pay all at once, and they bleed you with interest.

"We buy things we don't need and can't afford to impress people we don't care about."- Dave Ramsey

The trade-off of this consumer culture that we so eagerly participate in, is the benefit of "comfort". We just want to be "comfortable" even if it means giving up any semblance of privacy or choice in the matter. To me, the idea of drones bringing you products before you even ordered them is absolutely terrifying, but to many it seems "wonderfully convenient".

My solution is simple. Don't put any personal information on the internet, pay only cash, don't live beyond your means, don't use GPS, etc. etc. etc. I may sound like a weirdo or a hermit or a conspiracy theorist, in fact many of my friends and family call me these and more, but it really is becoming the only way to avoid the dangers of these corporate titans having a stranglehold on a life that could truly be called "yours".

Technology Advances That Do Good.

Technology  can often be debated as for whether these advancements are doing more good than harm in our society. I wanted to focus on the good that technology advances have done when it comes to the disabled community. Silicon Valley has a lead "employment" group and disclosing yourself as a disabled individual isn't one of them. Though many inventions aren't specifically directed towards disabled individuals, they can really help change lives for many disabled people. In the video above, this young lady now has the opportunity to take pictures thanks to Google glass. Google glass opens so many doors for any disabled individual with very limited mobility. This advancement in technology does really promote this man and machine merging dynamic. Though there is some controversy with this man and machine dynamic, this type of technology advancement helps promote equality and give disabled individuals able-bodied opportunities.

Social Bias Creeping Into Web Technology

Elizabeth Dwoskin wrote an article for WSJ explaining how social bias has creeped into web technology and algorithms have "reproduced old patterns of discrimination" creating new challenges in our technology.

The most important take away that I get from reading this article is how seemingly dependent we are on technology to produce results for us in which we expect to be unquestionable, correct, and unbiased. Just because we have these amazing innovations in technologies and exceptional algorithms for these systems to work for us doesn't mean that these systems, created by us are not unlike us. It is still our responsibility as people privileged to have access to and use these technologies to look further, do our own research, pursue more options than what we are just simply being presented on the web or with these technologies. These very systems do not relinquish our responsibilities to look further. It is a huge mistake that we can fathom this being the situation.

That being said technologies are not error-free. As this article stated, the only way we can see where there are errors, is by having a large number of users. We will continue to detect these errors in our use and maybe we can alter our systems algorithms etc.. to produce more accurate, unbiased results. In the resolution of our expectation for sole-dependence, absolute accuracy, and unbiased results (unrealistic), we can begin to have a healthier idea of what these technologies are for and how we can expand our results possibly lessening the reflection of the systems bias onto our own situations, mistakingly translating as biases of our own in modern day society.  

Technological Advances

There is this fascination with artificial intelligence and how it has advanced into our homes. Back in 1999 when Disney’s TV movie Smart House aired I wondered how cool it would be live in a house like that. Well, you could say Hollywood sometimes gives us a glimpse of what to expect in the future as far as the technological advances.

Some of these advances include turning off and on appliances with just an app on your phone. Like brewing your coffee in the morning to warming up your car in the winter. These advancements can be useful and will probably progress to make our first-world problems easier.

However, these advances aren’t limited to just the household. We can see these having a greater cause. Such as Milo, a robot who can help change the lives of children with autism.

As awesome and creepy as robots may be, we need to make sure they don’t malfunction and potentially become a threat to our world.

(Clip from I, Robot)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_DPi0PmF0

Die Mensch Maschine

Garside-Blur Lines

It's fascinating that the "singularity" is predicted to occur sometime in the next 30 years, which hopefully means I'm still around to see it. The funding and ownership of the cutting edge research to get us there is now in the hands of these gigantic corporations. I wonder what will happen once one of these companies reaches the breakthrough that creates the singularity. How will they use it, and who will have access to this technology? Will we even know about it?

In the article, a researcher already argues that we've arrived at the singularity. That we are already connected to networks and machines so much, that we've arrived without really noticing. Truly the concept of being connected to networks like we are every day was a far-out concept not too long ago, but is it really the "singularity?"

Technology is only going to become more central to our lives. We already make privacy and data sacrifices while using what we have today. How much will we have to sacrifice in the future? What else is there to give to use future technologies? In 30 years or less (I'll probably make it at this rate), I guess I'll know.

Let's Debate!

Dear all,

Please see below for your teams, debate topics, schedule for the class post-exam, and grading policies for the debate.  Let me know if you have any questions!

• A: Donkey Kong -- Ofelia, Sarah
• B: King Boo -- Alex, Taylor G, Lindsay
• C: Yoshi -- Jasselyn, Alexandra, Mark
• D: Bowser -- Cale, Jessica, Jamie
• E: Birdo -- Kaitlin, Taylor, Elessa
• F: Princess Peach -- Anfernee, Duncan, Darian
• G: Princess Daisy -- Sam, Natalie, Shumaila
• H: Kirby -- Shane, Edith
• I: Wario -- Joshua, Tony, Angel
• J: Mario -- Jeremy, Anthony

Mandatory Consultation: Thursday 11/10 (ATC 2.509)

• 2:30-2:45 - Donkey Kong
• 2:45-3:00 - Yoshi
• 3:00-3:15 - Birdo
• 3:15-3:30 - Princess Daisy
• 3:30-3:45 - Wario

Mandatory Consultation: Tuesday 11/15 (ATC 2.509)

• 2:30-2:45 - King Boo
• 2:45-3:00 - Bowser
• 3:00-3:15 - Princess Peach
• 3:15-3:30 - Kirby
• 3:30-3:45 - Mario

Optional Consultation: Thursday 11/17 (ATC 2.509)

• Everyone should meet and work on debate prep during class time
• Sign up by 2:30pm on 11/16. First come first served: http://doodle.com/poll/6xx6752msadwkzf4 

Debate Schedule:

• 11/29: Donkey Kong vs. King Boo
• 11/29: Yoshi vs. Bowser
• 12/1: Birdo vs. Princess Peach
• 12/1: Princess Daisy vs. Kirby
• 12/6: Wario vs. Mario
• 12/6: Pizza vs. Pizza

Notes: 

1. Team consultations will take place in Dr. Lee's office (ATC 2.509). The rest of class should meet and work on debate prep during class time on 11/10, 11/15, and 11/17.
2. Due to time constraint, it is important that each team arrives on time. 
3. To maximize what you get out of the consultation, you are expected to have a rough draft of (a) your main arguments, (b) your anticipated arguments from the other side, and (c) your counter-argument against the anticipated arguments from the other side.
4. You are welcome to make appointments with me -- either as a team or individually -- outside of class time to talk more about your debate ideas as desired.
5. You are encouraged to fill out an optional peer evaluation form before the end of the semester to report irresponsible behaviors from other team members, should that become a concern (e.g., lack of communication or progress, absences on 11/10, 11/15, 11/17, etc.) The peer evaluation form is confidential, and will be taken into consideration during grading. Please contact me privately if you wish to fill out a form.

17. EMAC4372_Debates by Angela M. Lee on Scribd

Our Fatal Weakness

Our fatal weakness: trusting Facebook. Isn't crazy that we, the users of Facebook, allow a social media site to decide what is important to read? Whether it is a friend's post or an article on Paper, we are allowing algorithms to make decisions for us.

Algorithms are probably the worst feature on social media sites. On Facebook, I always feel like I never see posts from certain people, and then see too many posts from others. Which is funny, because I rarely like anyones posts or really do anything on that site aside from invisibly scrolling. So I'm curious on to how Facebook created an algorithm based on who I would like to see on my feed. Twitter and Instagram were once my favorite sites, due to their non-use of algorithms. But now that Twitter and Instagram recently adapted algorithms to their sites, I'm slowly beginning to hate those too. Why can't we just live in a world where we see posts from friends in real-time, with no filtering and no algorithms? Is that too much to ask for?

The idea of Facebook creating a news app scares me. Facebook has been under close-eye and scrutiny for altering "Top Stories" and filtering out certain information and key words from their news feed. The thought of Facebook acting as a news site through Paper sounds ridiculous to me. Facebook should stick to social media and let actual news corporations (such as CNN, FOX, etc.) stick to news. If we begin to let Facebook branch out to all other aspects of media, then all of a sudden we will have one dominating force in society controlling everything we think, see, or hear.

No matter how much I complain about Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook using algorithms and filtering posts for me, I will never stop using these sites. I've tried, and I always come back. I guess, that too, is also another fatal weakness.

Facebook Quizzes

In the article, Facebook quizzes: What happens to your data?, Jane Wakefield discusses a “privacy nightmare” that was created by a Facebook app that accessed your Facebook data in order to create a word-cloud of the your used words. The data accessed by Vonvon, the creators of the app, included “name, profile picture, age, sex, birthday, entire friend list, everything you have posted on your timeline, all of your photos, home town, education history and everything you have ever liked.” While this app was hugely popular, it was not even in Vonvon’s top list of most popular apps, which includes an app to scour through yours and others’ Facebook data to find your soul-mate. According to a chief executive of Vonvon, "We(Vonvon) only use your information to generate your results, and we never store it for other purposes,"  while this seems like a happy notion it is likely untrue. "It is hard to believe that these apps are collecting data just to make better quizzes," he told the BBC. "Especially when their privacy policies go into so much detail about how they may use personally identifiable data" said Paul Bischoff, a freelance journalist. Wakefield also finds it puzzling how we allow some companies to access our personal data without complaint but gripe when others company due, which blurs the distinction of what is acceptable. In the end he points to the advice of security expert Lisa Vaas who says that although it may be fun to find out which fictional character you are or who your soul-mate is, it’s not worth trading your personal information for.

What Happens on Snapchat...

Back in 2014 Snapchat was in hot water with the FTC over a claim they made in their FAQ section. The company claimed that all "snaps" disappeared when the time ran out and that there was no way to retrieve the photos once they were gone. This allowed users to believe that they could send whatever they wanted over the messaging service without running the risk of the "wrong people" seeing it.

However, the FTC discovered that Snapchat has many "back doors" where third-party apps can enter and collect the photos and videos that allegedly disappeared. Users can also connect their devices to a PC and download any "lost" photos or videos.

Instead of fighting the claims, Snapchat settled with the FTC. This resulted in a "transparency" blog post by the company and the required surveillance of an independent privacy professional for the next 20 years. The settlement also prohibited Snapchat from using such words/claims as "ephemeral," "disappear forever," and "aren't saved" when describing their service.

So my question is this: are we really that surprised? At the time of which this ruling came out, online consumers were already aware of Google's and Facebook's algorithm, so is it really a shock that Snapchat had a similar process? We live in a world where it's safe to assume that every social app has a backdoor where all data (status updates, photos, videos, etc.) is saved. The idea of privacy in terms of social media has become an illusion. However, as a society we have participated in a collective private acceptance. We know that nothing we share or post is ever really lost, we just choose to ignore the reality that a stranger can access this information without our knowledge. This gives us the freedom to post without caution, not caring (but not ignorant) to the truth that whatever happens on Snapchat, does actually stay on Snapchat.

The revolution will not be Digitalized

This weeks readings hits a few spots with me. I am torn by Apple's letter and affirmed by the Facebook quizzes and the buzzfeed's article. I also agree that millennials do care about their privacy. i believe  that they are being distracted and their digital nature is causing a bit of a harm. I am torn with the apple's letter because I do believe that the use of technology/data can bring extraordinary solutions to  very damaging issues.However not at the expense of  an invasion of privacy. It is hard for me to pretend that it would be easy for me to be sympathetic to , rapists, murders, and thieves,  but these individuals still hold  basic human rights in prison. It is kind of the same when it comes to data.  The possession of data should still hold the same basic values. It would be ideal to just generate a magical key to help with such "isolated" cases but if it comes to where all human rights to privacy can be invaded rather for "alleged" criminal activity or not, we still have to considered all the lasting effects this magical  key may have on the people it is ironically trying to protect. At what measure do we give up privacy? Currently, we choose to not to participate in "quizzes" that collect our data but what if laws are being constructed right now, right underneath our noses that would allow certain agencies in the name of safety to see your data?  The sketchy part is that  these laws may exist but we are not aware of  them. perhaps, privacy is not considered personal property. Do you believe if privacy would be a means of currency for "the people" ,would the people be more aware  of the laws that governs it? I believe that it is a source of revenue for  many but because we the people are not benefiting or partakers, we may be more acceptable of distractions. That's why I believe millennials do care, they are  distracted by the digital world. They grew up in a whole other culture. A culture where if you need an answer you just googled it and settle for the first answers that pops up. I am guilty of this convenience too. Growing up with digital access has changed the dynamics of awareness. We the people now have to search through oceans of opinions posted on blogs , sensational "news media, influential videos, and much more. I don't have  "data" that would help with  my theory, but  I do know that  our need to feel safe is effecting our views on privacy and if we don't pay attention,  we may no longer have that  individual right .

How Much Does Buzzfeed Know About Your Life?

It’s really easy to get sucked into Buzzfeed quizzes. As a whole, they’re pretty lighthearted and topically relevant to whatever is in the news or pop culture on the day they’re posted. It’s fun to compare your results to your friends, especially when your friend ends up with the less favorable result. It’s fleeting amusement at its finest.

Am I surprised to read how much data Buzzfeed collects while I’m taking a “What % Wednesday Addams are You?” quiz? Hardly. But I was shocked when I realized the implications of some of the data they’ve obtained from quizzes with more serious questions, such as the “How Privileged Are You?” quiz mentioned in the article, which I definitely remember taking. It’s kind of chilling to know that millions of people have taken this quiz in earnest, and in doing so disclosed information about their mental health and life story to a disembodied digital entity. In addition to asking participants about sexual assault, this specific quiz asks them to specify their sexuality and gender identity. It makes me sad to think about how many people have taken this quiz and given honest answers to these questions, but may not be in a place where they can comfortably disclose this information to people in their own lives.

I hope that Buzzfeed uses the information with a good purpose. Maybe they can use the data to create sharable statistics, or influence social change. It would be foolish for anyone to look at Buzzfeed as not having weight, and it would be foolish for Buzzfeed to collect personal details idly. 

Millennials and Privacy Rights

The studies elaborated by this Medium article seem to confirm that Millennials see online privacy as an individualistic responsibility, and I think there’s a lot of truth to that. We’ve clicked “Agree” in response to so many different (and yet, almost identical in wording) terms of service that the whole process seems like a mindless transaction. It’s not like you can really refute any of the terms listed, so it’s much easier to click “Yes” and accept the responsibility of making sure that your information is secure on your own.

I think as Millennials, we’re more conscious about our privacy because a lot of our online presence is centered on marketing our content and posts. Whether we share content on public or private accounts, we post with the purpose of establishing and elaborating our own online brand. We want as much control over our information and who has access to it as possible, while also maintaining a realistic view that there is some data that will be collected about us whether we like it or not. The information we elect to share is mostly rooted in our branding and what we want to convey to a vaguely-defined audience.

I thought it was interesting that Medium brought up the way Millennials selectively utilize location services online, because I feel like they accurately relayed my own opinions towards it. When I’m at home, I go out of my way to restrict my location information to a broader “Dallas” if anything at all. The only times I will disclose the suburb I live in is when Snapchat releases a new geotag for it (and in that instance, only a handful of friends who already know where I live will see it), or for political campaigns. However, most of the content I share to social media is related to travel plans, concerts, and shows with specific locations. In those instances, I strangely have no qualms in directly naming a venue or city that I’m in- even when I’m still technically in Dallas.

 From my own experience, I think the perception of online privacy is very much a grey area of thought, and can be easily influenced by how we think certain details from our lives can be used tactfully to serve our online brand.

Do Millennials Care?

There is no doubt about it, millennials are avid internet users. I spend so much time online, whether it is through my phone, my laptop, my iPad, scrolling through social media, Google, or miscellaneous websites, that it's too hard to keep up with what applications and which sites are stealing my data. For instance, I had no idea that Buzzfeed aggregates quiz answers, or that those Facebook quizzes have access to your information long after you take the quiz.

Millennials have grown up in this digital age, and we know no life other than this, so I think we are just unaware and unconcerned about how websites are using our data. Personally, I go back and forth about I feel regarding privacy. Some days, I'm all about it, but then other days I just don't care. In all reality, I'm just a number, just a random profile ID, within a large pool containing thousands of people and all their data.

I think it's hard to keep a steady platform on privacy, because I don't experience any day to day consequences from these websites having access to my data. Which is scary to think about, because while I'm being ignorant about online privacy, these corporations will be altering rules, and all of a sudden these effects will be evident and detrimental.

Whoops There Goes My Data (10/25)

This set of articles reminded me of a recent episode of Note To Self, one of my favorite podcasts, where they discussed the possibility that our phones might quite literally be listening in on us. Most of us are contently floating along in cyberspace, unknowingly hemorrhaging data with every button press and mouse click. It takes something out of the ordinary to make us pause and step back to look at the bigger picture. I experienced one of these moments recently.

At work, I was ordering stickers in bulk. I perused several sites to price compare, decided on the company with the best deal, sent off my order, and life went on. The next day, as I was checking my personal Instagram account, I noticed something strange: an embedded ad for the site I just ordered the stickers from. I had never been to this site before yesterday, and I only looked at it while I was on work at a work computer. I understand this happened because I was logged into several personal accounts on my work computer including Facebook (who owns Instagram), but the experience made me pause. If it's that easy to connect my personal and work lives online, how should/will I handle this when I'm employed in a more serious job?      

So I'm faced with a problem but no solution. How can we better protect ourselves online without being Mr. Robot levels of computer genius? As the Medium article states, younger generations clearly care about this issue. Far more so than the older generations, we're the ones that are going to have to live with the ramifications of our previous actions. Most of us have posting online since we were children with our first social media accounts. While my parents younger selves remain private and inaccessible other than what they choose to share, my old MySpace bulletins from 7th grade are probably still somewhere out there waiting to cause me embarrassment. I suppose the first step to remedying this is to, as addicting as they are, stop taking those Buzzfeed quizzes.

1st and 4th Amendment rights on the line

It is fair to claim Apple's letter to consumers is polarizing. One side argues for protection of privacy and commends Apple's stand, while the other side argues for surrender of privacy in the interest of the common good. The argument is stirred by emotion. Which is more valuable, personal freedom or public safety? Is is possible the FBI used the court of public opinion and pushed Apple consumers' post 9/11 buttons to force Apple's hand?

Source: National Journal

In the wake of terrorist tragedy, it is reasonable to quickly answer, "public safety, of course." However, Apple is defending it's customers right to privacy protected under the fourth amendment.

Considering the data tracking collected by companies, do consumers sign away right to privacy, Fourth Amendment? Considering previous articles on how behavior is altered when one is aware of monitoring, are consumers voluntarily surrendering rights to free speech, First Amendment?

Privacy

Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote a Customer Letter to inform Apple customers and U.S. citizens why it was so important that Apple not create an operating system to circumvent its many security features or help give the "key" to its encrypted information; because this technique provides opportunity for a back door into many other systems including those in homes, stores, and banks. Put into the wrong hands, this is a major threat to the security of American people and go against the very fundamentals of the basis of our government.

I believe that Apple was undeniably justified in not helping the U.S. government build a "back door" into its own products to protect its customers but ultimately help protect the American people. Security is important and with so many threats to our worlds physical safety, it is nice to think our devices, home, banks, and stores are for the most part, protected. 

They say millennials do not care about their privacy, however, we do. It just may seem this way because we are accustomed to technology, how it works, and the kind of surveillance it comes with. However, this request from the government goes beyond surveillance. It crosses a security and privacy boundary that is too much of an invasion and a threat to our security and freedoms as American citizens. I believe that even though it may seem that as a generation we are less private, we recognize the crossing of boundaries of surveillance into a threat to our securities and privacies and when it has the potential to undermine our basic freedoms and liberties.

Facebook's Fatal Weakness 10/27/16

Facebook has managed to change us over the last decade by providing us with a sense of online community that we hadn't experienced prior. Unfortunately, Facebook's algorithms dictate the posts that pop up in our feed and their importance to us without us knowingly consenting. We are essentially powerless against these algorithms that pay close attention to what we click, like, and follow and we are shown a feed that corresponds consequently. Amazon and Google have given us a stronger sense of individuality as we have more control over what we are shown. We tailor Amazon and Google to ourselves as Facebook does the opposite. I don't think that Facebook will go anywhere soon, but Mark Zuckerberg should be wary of how people are able to more easily put their trust in other media outlets that don't dictate our preferences for us. Because of Facebook's longevity, and the fact that many Facebook users have had an account since its genesis a decade ago, rebuilding an online community that people would be willing to forgo Facebook for would be a gigantic feat. It won't happen overnight, but at some point, I think people will want to regain control of what feeds they are shown and the types of media accounts they utilize.