Am I Giving Too Much Time to My Technology?

 Undoubtably yes. Below is my screen time for this current week. Note that it is exam week and I have had 4 final papers and presentations to submit, so I was using my phone a bit less. Actually about 14% less, thanks to my iPhone that tracks my every move and click of a button. My average screen time for these past fours days is 4 hours and 8 minutes. 

My iPhone is no doubt the most important technology in my life. It allows me to communicate no matter where I am, with whoever I want, and through any medium I choose. But what would my life be like if I had an old flip phone like my parents and older siblings used? I would certainly be less distracted thats for sure. So how could I repurpose those 4 hours and 8 minutes I spend on my phone a day?

I could master photoshop. I could read a book. I could start my own business. I could do more cardio. I could go to an amusement park. I could go for a walk. I could reach out to an old friend. I could learn how to cook. I could train for a marathon. I could apply for jobs. I could even create my own version of 'Battle Shots' like my girlfriend has wanted. I could drive to Raleigh or Charlotte to visit my brother or sister. The point is, I could better myself if I didn't spend so much time on my phone. So why don't I just return my iPhone and get one of those old flip phones?

Well, society tells me not to. If you don't have an iPhone and are put into a group chat and the color is green the first reaction is "ughh who doesn't have an iPhone?" If I had a flip phone I would be an inconvenience to the rest of society. If I were conducting business and had to access a link or document on the spot, I wouldn't be able to do so with a flip phone. I wouldn't be able to keep in touch with my friends as easily because I wouldn't be on social media. I also wouldn't be able to FaceTime my loved ones. 

Technology is great, especially the iPhone. It is the single most diverse piece of technology out there. Like the prompt said, you can do anything or access an abundance of information from the touch of a button. But because it is so easy to use, it has taken over my life. Apple and other tech companies have conditioned us to "need" a SmartPhone. Now that we are able to do all of the things the iPhone is capable of, what is my life going to be like without them? 

The Mad World Remix video describes how I feel about technology perfectly. I hate that I feel awkward walking past a stranger on the street and fight the urge to pull out my phone just so I don't have to make eye contact with them. The thought that I actually do that to people is embarrassing.

Another major negative impact that I do not face personally, but feel the effects of through others is the image that society requires. I hate that my mom, sister, sister-in-law, girlfriend, and female friends feel insecure becasue society tells them they should look a certain way. I personally hate plastic surgery. First because it looks awful or blatantly obvious 99% of the time. But second because it means that the person who got the surgery felt so insecure about how they look that they spent their hard earned money to change who they are. I do not believe a person's appearance defines who they are. Sure the type of clothing I wear suggests that I skateboard, vote for liberal candidates, and smoke weed. But that is just an assumption, not all of that is true.

 While the song is about social justice, treating people with respect, and bettering oneself, J.Cole's "Change" off of his 2016 Platinum album 4 Your Eyez Only describes how I feel perfectly.

"I know you're desperate for a change let the pen glide / But the only real change comes from inside / But the only real change comes from inside/ But the only real change comes from- /"

Cole is saying that people think that change comes from external sources- like something you receive, buy for yourself, or do to your body. But change comes from meditation and understanding a person's own feelings, then acting on their new understanding. I know for a fact that technology and social media in specific has made everyone insecure and anxious. And I don't blame them. At any moment a photo out of context could be taken of you and a story that doesn't represent who you truly are could ruin your life. People are one click away from making a judgement about your entire life, and who is to stop them. It is over a screen and not face-to-cafe confrontation. It is much easier to be rude and disrespectful. 

I've talked a lot about the negatives of technology, but haven't even scratched the surface. There is no denying that there are more positives to technology than negatives, but I do feel that our relationship with technology has caused us to lose touch with our own humanity. We are social beings. We should be having more face-to-face interactions. I should not overthink myself into a panic because I could not decipher the tone of your "Okay" text message.

Mediasphere: Choosing the Perfect Online Influencer

The internet has the potential to make a company millions. Billions even. Everyday when we open up our phones or computers, companies are pushing their products through our time line. They collect data from your internet and social media use and determine which of their products you are most likely to buy. The things you click on are the things that you are interested in. You wouldn't ever click on something that you didn't really want to see. You wouldn't follow an account if you didn't want to see their content. Today, the buying and selling of products online, or E-Commerce, is an effective strategy for a variety of businesses. The Brick and Mortar strategy of the past is slowly fading. Sure, in-store purchases will never fade away because people like to hold the products in their hand before they buy them, but isn't it just so convenient to purchase things online?

Companies advertise their products in a variety of ways. There are TV commercials, YouTube ads, and company social media accounts. These are all great and every effective, but consumers want to see that the products that they purchase actually add value to their lives. If you ask a company "Will your product add value to my life?" it is extremely likely that they will say yes. That is their goal: sell you their product. So how do you begin trusting a company enough to purchase their products? 

Online Influencers are one of the most secure investments a company can make. Lets take an example from my own social media feed. Kevin Hart is arguably one of the greatest comedians to ever walk on stage. He has had his ups and downs just like every other celebrity, but overall, he is an extremely likable person, has an amazing sense of humor, and cares about his and his families health and well-being. One of the things that Kevin does on a daily basis is work out. If you visit @kevinhart4real on Instagram, you will see the comedian with his family, one stage, in photoshoots, and in the gym. Kevin Hart also has an extremely widespread audience. On Instagram he has 108 million followers. Those are 108 million potential customers for companies looking to sell their products. So what does the company do with all of this information?

A company will look for an influencer who has a significant following on social media AND posts content that is related to how they live their life. When choosing a social media influencer, a company has to make sure the person they are choosing will actually like their product. If a sportswear company were to pick a person who had 100 million followers but they did not work out, why would their viewers buy their products? Also, a significant number of those followers might not even work out, so why would they want to buy sportswear. A company called Fabletics avoided this issue and picked the right influencer for their sportswear products: Kevin Hart. At least three times a week I see Kevin Hart pop up on my Instagram feed shouting at me how comfortable and affordable his Fabletic workout shorts are. He says that once he purchased these shorts, he had no desire to ever go back to Nike shorts. The key to choosing the perfect online influencer is that the relationship benefits both parties indefinitely. 

In this example, Fabletics receives an influencer who has an enormous following, likes and uses their products, and a positive attitude that attracts people. Kevin Hart receives payment to advertise the product, he gets free clothing, recognition, and can continue to live his life how he wants to live it. A majority of companies will use online influencers as part of their business strategy. The leading reason that they do this is to increase brand recognition. Other main reasons are to reach new audiences and generate sales. The chart below highlights the overarching goal of using online influencers.

In the future when I start my own businesses, my marketing strategy will definitely have a mixture of e-commerce and online influencers. Using these tactics are a great way to build brand loyalty with your customers and make sure they they are satisfied with the content that they see related to your product. 

Agenda Setting: A Major Reason Not to Trust Everything You Read

Agendas are something that we constantly overlook. Even though each of us have our own personal goals with agendas set to achieve said goals, we are a part of other's agendas without knowing.  Agenda Setting is defined as the "ability [of the press] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." In other words, agenda setting is what the news media can do in order to get more people to view their content. They select what they believe to be the most important aspects of our society, and push that in the news. With this they convince society that because these stories are in the news everyday that they are what we need to focus on and be most worried about.

News stations, campaigns, political ads, and public relations representatives all use a variety of techniques in order to convey the 'importance' of a event, situation, and/or topic. The editors of the organizations that set agendas are the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers control what goes in and what goes out. Looking at gatekeeping in a news setting, editors have the final say on what is to be published. Ultimately, the things that society believes to be important are really what the editors of the major news stations believe to be important.

In my eyes there is a significant amount more of negative impacts than positive impacts of agenda setting. The only positive that I can think of myself is that agenda setting may highlight an issue that truly does need attention. The editor may actually believe choose to highlight something that is inspiring or truly devastating that will cause society to act on it with a united front. But in reality, today is all about the number of clicks that you get, not the quality of your content. The negatives of agenda setting that I can identify are that it prevents people from thinking on their own. With news stations such as CNN and Fox News who have millions upon millions of devoted listeners on a daily basis, these channels have the ability to heard their viewers like sheep. We see it so often. Last year I stopped watching the news because iI would get pissed off, even with the channel that I would lean towards agreeing with. Everything on CNN was how Donald Trump has done nothing but terrible things for the United States. While I don't like Trump at all, I have plenty of friends who can legitimately tell me how his time in office benefited their parents small businesses. When watching CNN, I would get sick and tired and the moaning and groaning anchors. All they would talk about is how Trump has done nothing for COVID, which he really didn't, but I don't need to see the same story 3 times a day for 3 consecutive months. My suggestion to the editors of both channels would be to find some more meaningful content, something that inspires people to do better in life. But what do I know? All they want are people to continue fighting with each other so they grow more and more loyal to their news station and continue to bring them advertisement opportunities.

The press has the ability to shape reality, the press does no reflect reality. While the news circulates between 3-5 major stories, they are not the only major events occurring in our world of almost 8 Billion people. The press gets people to focus on the issues they deem as important and by circulating these stories, the audience places more importance on the topic. Ways that the news can do this is through priming and framing. Priming is when something prepares another thing for use or action. These could be headlines that shout "BREAKING NEWS" or "LATEST UPDATE." Their all capital letters draw attention immediately to themselves no matter what medium you are viewing the content on. Immediately when opening the publication your attention is turned to the "BREAKING NEWS." The news will also bring in expert opinions or discussions in order to convey the message they are trying to send. Framing is sharping a contextualizing something that gets people to understand something a bit better. The problem with framing is that it is objective. There is a bias that influences the context that is shared with an audience. When people hear a cetain story, the first story that they hear is typically the one that they will stick with. Any other new information that they hear they will be suspect about it.

I really enjoyed talking about agenda setting, gatekeeping, framing, and priming. The news pisses me off. I never know what to accept or who to believe. I know there is truth in both sides, but what is the truth and what is the bullshit that further divides us? I don't watch news, I read stories about stuff I am actually interested in, I decide my my own importance. Sure, every publication has an editor, but check back to My Top 5 News Sources post to see what I mean. The only news source I am worried about of those five is the New York Times, I understand what side their bias leans towards. But I do feel they do a good god at representing opposing opinions. They invite people from the opposing side to share their opinions so we can better understand them, not so they can be bashed on national TV like CNN and Fox News does.

Diffusion Theory: Driving Electric

 Diffusion Theory tries to explain how, why, and the rate at which things like ideas and technology are spread and adopted. There are are four stages of this theory: exploratory, uptake/ascent, saturation, and maturation. In the exploratory stage, the pioneers or innovators are creating the new idea or technology. In the uptake and ascent stage, the innovators and pioneers have spread the ideas to more people, and the idea or technology has started to gain popularity. Between the ascent stage and the next stage, saturation, we see the tipping point. The tipping point is where the majority of people have adopted the idea or technology into their own lives. The saturation stage shows that even more people have adopted the idea or technology even after the initial increase of popularity of the idea. The final stage of the Diffusion Theory is maturation. This is where the people who lagged behind, the laggards, begin to adopt the idea and technology after it has been further developed and the penetration of the idea or technology in society has already peaked. This information can be views graphically in the drawing below.

There are also factors that affect the stages of the Diffusion Theory. These factors are the mix of rural to urban population, the society's level of education, and the extent of industrialization and development. Each society has a different rate of adoption based on these factors and more. When you think about rural areas, you are safe to assume that ideals are linked to tradition. When something new interferes with traditions, there is hesitation for adoption. 

In order to fully explain the Diffusion Theory, lets talk about how the innovation of Electric Vehicles have impacted society. Tesla Inc. was founded in 2003 but took off in 2008 as Elon Musk took over as CEO. Electric cars were not popular. There was a major stigma about the people who chose to drive electric or hybrid vehicles. I remember when my family bought a Honda Prius Hybrid around 2010. My brother had to drive himself and my sister to their high school everyday. Pardon my language, but I remember him coming home one day frustrated because somebody called him a 'pussy' for driving a Prius. Obviously, my parents weren't aware of this and didn't care. It was a car that was getting him from A to B and saved him a lot of money on gas. He was grateful for this, but the stigma did not just affect him. Electric vehicles were also viewed as low performance vehicles that weren't reliable. Range Anxiety is a major factor that cause people to adopt this type of product late or never at all. Range Anxiety is the fear that an electric vehicle will run out of battery and leave you stranded in the middle of your trip. 

Elon Musk has taken charge to make the world drive electric vehicles. According to J.P. Morgan, 38% of the sales in United States are projected to drive electric by 2025. Elon Musk, my brother/parents, and many others who started driving electric/hybrid vehicles early are considered the innovators of the Diffusion Theory stages. If 38% of the US is supposed to be driving electric by 2024, these people would be apart of the ascension stage of the Diffusion Theory. Once about 50% of the US drives electric, the tipping point would be reached. Anybody after who adopts driving electric into their lives would be considered a part of the saturation stage. Once a majority of people are driving electric, anyone still driving gas would be the laggards who are holding on to what they are used to. 

Diffusion Theory is an interesting thing to think about. Whenever something new comes out and becomes popular, its likely that we are a part of the early majority or late adopters and in the saturation stages. We help make the product popular by buying into it when people start to give good reviews. I want to be a part of the innovators. I don't know exactly what I want to innovate or pioneer, but I want to be somebody who sets a trend or industry standard. Innovators/Pioneers of anything have a significant impact on society. They may not be well-known, but what attracts me to being a pioneer is that you help people without them even knowing who provided the product for them. I want to make an impact silently. 

Where are the Antiwar Voices?

 In our class, we learned that the United States engages in war in order to minimize the rights of US citizens. In times of war, civil liberties are limited. We find examples of liberties being limited all throughout US history. The one that stands out to me the most is during World War II when US Officials placed anybody of Japanese decent into Internment Camps. This created a lot of backlash for the US Government because a majority of the Japanese in the camps were US Citizens. The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect US citizens from harassment by the government, but in this case, it created a stigma against Japanese-Americans and other Asian-American groups. 

On ANTIWAR.com articles against acts of war are plentiful. There are articles that highlight the Biden Administration's plan to 'End' the war in Iraq. The author of the article, Bonnie Kristian, says that the end of the war is welcomed but long overdue. Kristian is mocking the United States efforts to end the war. There was another effort to remove all troops from Iraq in 2011, but the Obama Administration failed to do so. Kristian hopes that Biden will stick to his agenda which is "refusing to let the end of the war in Afghanistan in 2021 replicate the 'end' of the war in Iraq in 2011." 

On The American Conservative there are themes of realism and articles that support the removal of troops from Afghanistan even though Biden is leading the charge. In an article by Doug Bandow called Stop Treating Friends Like Foes, Bandow stresses that the US needs to cooperate with it's allies in the fight against China. Growing up in an American public school, we learned that the United States was key in both of the World Wars. Their relations with other super-power nations like Great Britain and Russia allowed the United States to make a significant impact in both wars. The United States' military powers trump every other nation by far, which is a benefit for allied countries such as India, the Philippines, and South Korea who are in range of China. We should be focusing on making peace rather than further the gap between our nations. 

When asked about why we don't see more of sites and news articles like this, I have to wonder is the US government interferes. Obviously, if a nation is going to war it has to have the support of its people. Citizens of that nation going to war will be majorly affected. If the citizens do not see the benefit to the war, why would they undergo major societal changes? Do we not see sites like these in mainstream media because the Government is trying to prevent more people from being educated on what is actually happening in our foreign affairs? If it is so, is that Constitutional? The Bill of Rights allows press freedom. We are allowed to speak our beliefs and opinions about what the government choses to do. By pushing Antiwar voices aside so that major news station can cover affairs briefly, most Americans wont see antiwar media. If a news stations agenda is to support war efforts, the US government wouldn't do anything to silence those voices, because they are in favor of what the nation is doing. I beleive that it is more common for antiwar voices to be silenced because it prevents the administration in office from achieving what they have set out to do. 

But again, the Bill of Rights protects our First Amendment rights of freedom of the press. Antiwar media IS allowed to be published, we just don't see it in mainstream media. This class is the first time that I have actually heard of Antiwar.com and The American Conservative. They are not as popular as CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times, so their voices aren't heard as clearly. By allowing antiwar media to be published, the government isn't interfering with the journalists' First Amendment right. Though, it is still suspicious that anti war voices aren't heard as frequently. Authors like Doug Bandow who have served under former US Presidents aren't writing for major news stations like Fox News. With so much experience and expertise, I would expect that Bandow to have more of a platform. To close, all throughout my reading on both sites and my writing of this blog post, my suspicion of the US limiting free speech has grown. Are there more media sources that cover controversial topics that don't share the same platform as major news stations, and are they too silenced?

Movie Tickets Only Used to Cost 25 Cents?

In the class session prior to this blog post, each of my peers presented a piece of technology that has had major impact on society since their initial release. There were people who presented their findings on the internet, computers, different social media sites, but the one that stood out the most to me was actually a classmate in my group. 

The first movie was actually not quiet a movie. It was a moving image that lasted only a couple seconds long. My classmate said that it was created after a bet was made. A gentlemen wanted to prove that all four hooves of a horse were off of the group at one point while the horse is running. An engineer was hired and in 1878 we determined that all four hooves of a horse are off the group while it runs. 

Movies were stored in reels and played on projectors. Images after images were placed on these reels, editing was done by literal cutting and pasting. These films did not have sound either, they were in black and white, and the sound included in the film was actually performed live by a theatre's band. In 1927, the first Talkie, or movie with dialogue, was released. It was titled The Jazz Singer. This movie featured actors actually speaking to each other.

The next significant thing to happen with Movies is the release of the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz. This film was the first to be released in color. The first half of the movie was actually in black and white. When Dorothy wakes up after the Tornado her world is in color.

 

Regardless of all the the advancements movies had in such a short period of time relative to human history, the thing that stood out to me the most about my peers presentation was about how people actually go and see films. My classmate said that a movie ticket that gave you access to two shows and a performance would cost you only 25 cents. My mind was absolutely blown. In our actually presentation my head shot towards him speaking to the right of me.

While I understand that 25 cents was more back then than it is today, it is only 25 cents. Today if you go to the movies your tickets are anywhere from $10-$15 for a singular movie. Popcorn, a drink, and a box of candy on top of the ticket ads another $20 on top of that. After using an inflation calculator, I was able to determine that 25 cents is equivalent to about $3.30 in todays economy. Considering the comfort of movie theaters today, the quality of the screen and sound systems, and after inflation for 100 years, three shows for 25 cents is a fantastic deal. 

While the movies are a very enjoyable experience and I am satisfied with the quality product and service theaters provide, I am not happy about the evolution of the price of the experience. Today movie theaters struggle, especially since COVID, because people complain about the small fortune they must spend to use the theaters. Another reason they struggle is because streaming services make new movies available so easily from the comfort of one's home.

 I think that it would be a really good marketing move if AMC were to start selling their theaters and using that money to fund outdoor, drive-in theaters. Having an outdoor theater in every town is an attraction for everyone. It is socially distant, it can be nostalgic for some people, and it is a unique experience that gets people out of their house and competes with Netflix and other streaming services.

Apple's iPod had a Major Impact on Portable Music

Before we could stream any song off of YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Music, people had to physically bring their music with them. Listeners on the go would walk around with cases containing different cassette tapes or CD's. Strapped around their waist would either be a Walkman or Discman. The Sony Walkman TPS-L2 was released in July of 1979. The Walkman enabled people to listen to their music privately while in public. The Boombox was considered portable music, but it could be considered a pain to those who aren't a fan of what is being played.

Cassette were phased out after the invention of the CD. Sony released the Discman in 1984 allowing people who chose the alternative to cassettes to listen on the go. The MP3 Player was released in 1998, having a major impact on how we listen to music today. With the MP3, people didn't have to cary hardcopies of their music with them everywhere that they went.

The MP3, the Sony SPH-M100 (2000) or first mobile phone with music playing capabilities, and the iPod (2001) could be plugged into a computer and music could be loaded onto the device. Today, our Smart Phones carry all of our music, but prior to the iPhone there was one of Apple's highest selling tech devices: The iPods. 

The iPod originally came out in October of 2001. Since the release of the 1st Generation iPod, there have been over 14 generations of iPods release. These iPods have different designs to meet each person's music device needs.

The 1st Generation iPod was a brick that held 5GBs worth of music. They then introduced the iPod mini in 2004 which was a more compact device that offered listeners more pocket space. Another model called the Shuffle was released for those listeners who wanted their music while exercising. This was a very small device that could easily fit in the pocket or on the waist band of a runner. The Shuffle was named so because it didn't have a screen, so you could only listen on shuffle.

The iPod Nano was another model. This one was smaller than the 1st Generation, could hold a good amount of songs, and had a screen. The Nano would become one of the more popular models and have several make-overs. The circular button on the front would later be replaced by a touch screen in its 7th Generation, and its 5th generation would have a video camera. 

In September 2007 the iPod Touch was released. The Touch is an iPod that has a large screen and the ability to search the web. It would later get front and back facing cameras and upgrade on its storage and processing chips. In June of the same year,  Apple had already released the iPhone. Today, 47% of cell phone users in the US are iPhone users.

I would consider the iPhone to be the new iPod, and I would believe Apple's innovators would agree. The iPhone is multiple devices in one. One of those devices apart of the iPhone is the iPod. On apple.com, there is no tab available to find the iPod. If you wanted to purchase one you would have to use the site's search bar.

The reason that I provided a brief history of portable music was to highlight the amount of innovation portable music seen in such a short time. We went from cassettes to CD's, CD's to MP3's, MP3's to iPods, and iPods to iPhones. 

The iPod was only a short stint along this journey from the Walkman to the iPhone, but we still see so many features in our Smart Phones, iPhone or Android, that came from Apple's iPod. Obviously, the iPod is a feature within the iPhone via the music application. 

iTunes used to be where iPod users could purchase music and other media using their desktop. This application still exists, but the streaming era has hurt this part of Apple because people can stream music instead of purchase the song. 

Access to the internet as a feature in the iPod Touch is no doubt the most important iPod feature to be added. Even though the iPhone came out before and already had this feature, it gave kids who did not have a cell phone yet access to the internet from anywhere with Wi-Fi. 

The biggest personal impact that the iPod and iTunes has had on me was its contribution to my taste in music. When I was really young, I didn't have money so I couldn't buy my own music. My parents iTunes libraries were available to me as well as their CD collection, but that was always their music. When my brother passed down his 2nd Generation iPod Touch, I used the internet to access YouTube and Pandora to find new music. 

The iPod's internet feature allowed me to use Pandora to listen to a radio and stream artists full projects without having to pay for them. This was huge for me and many other kids around my age. While there are other major factors to why streaming is so big today, such as Napster, this feature of the iPod touch took listening to music to another level. Everybody streams music now. I couldn't tell you the last time I have actually purchased an album or song using iTunes.

As of now, streaming music on our iPhones seems like a pretty good resting point for the journey of portable music. I know change doesn't come over night, but I truly don't know how my music listening experience can improve looking at the device specifically.