Illusory Truth Effect v. Fake News

Many Americans spend hours on social media gathering their daily news. Millions of tweets, Facebook posts, and articles sharing the world news. This is the primary source of news for many people. But not every article on the internet is accurate or remotely true but many people don't bother to even fact check social media posts before clicking the share button. The war on fake news has been brewing for several years, but the illusory truth effect has made this fake news even more dangerous.

The illusory truth effect is the theory that someone is more likely to believe something the more often they see it. For example, many people believe that carrots are good for your eyesight because we've seen this advertised and said many times. But in reality, carrots alone cannot approve your eyesight. Because this message has been seen over and over again, people tend to believe it more than one scholarly article that says kale is better for your eyesight.

The problem with the illusory truth effect is that many people just remember the message and not the source. People will see ten messages about how President Obama is not a US citizen from unreliable sources and will be more likely to believe that than if the message were only published once. Fake news articles are accidentally posted and shared all the time, so the likelihood of someone seeing a false message many times, is very high. When people get their news from social media, they are less likely to read the full article or do any further research. They subconsciously trust the message and the person who shared it, and thus fake news is spread like wildfire.

Fake news is dangerous, especially surrounding politics. Politics is such an opinion based system that any false truth shared can completely change public opinions on important subjects. It is imperative that journalists and reporters post articles that are easy to understand and not misleading. It is also the responsibility of social media platforms to prevent normal users from altering headlines and text in published posts. No matter how educated or knowledgeable one is about a subject, seeing repeated messages will still subconsciously impact how we perceive new information. Every person is susceptible to fall for fake news, and it is everyone's responsibility to make sure that all information shared is as accurate as possible.

The Rise of Revenge Porn

In the day and age of smartphones and social media, the line between public and private information is quickly getting blurred. Some of the common information being shared on the internet now would make people fifty years ago cringe in embarrassment. Between check-ins on Facebook, mommy bloggers sharing the intimate details of raising their children, and the millions of people tweeting their innermost thoughts daily, there is almost no line left uncrossed on the internet. Recently, revenge porn has been in the news as one of the leading types of cyberbullying.

The name 'revenge porn' is very misleading and does not accurately definite the crime being committed. The word 'revenge' implies that the victim has done something to entice or hurt the offender. The victims of revenge porn are often victims because they denied advances from abusive and controlling partners. These victims did not incite this act or cause this to happen to them. Secondly, the word 'porn' is defined as sexualized media for public consumption, whether that be TV, magazines, or on the internet. These victims did not take these explicit photos and videos with the intentions of the world seeing. These photographs were taken for private use, between consenting adults. Describing it as 'porn' makes it seem as if these victims "had it coming" or "deserved" what happened to them.

Revenge porn is very difficult to police between consenting adults. The cases are black and white when it involves impulsive teenagers because sexual images of minors are illegal and all actions involving the pictures are heavily penalized. But pictures that two consenting adults share (especially if they are married or in a serious relationship) are very hard to prosecute. It is often assumed that the partners have a right to the pictures that they have received and because they were sent with consent, then the images can be shared as well.

Revenge porn is not a victimless crime. The victims of these crimes often fall into depressions or attempt suicide because they feel that their lives are over. Their future spouses, parents, children, future employers, all have access to these private images. Not all sexual photos are taken with consent either. Some are taken while people are asleep, intoxicated, or simply in secret and published and these images ruin their lives. Revenge porn should require offenders to register as sex offenders and be raised to a felony charge. No one has a right to share private, sexual images of others without their consent. The victims of these crimes are regular people that have to live with the aftermath of their damaged reputations and endure months of legal proceedings and searches deeper into their private lives. Revenge porn is more than just leaked nudes, it a tarnished reputation and a lifetime of dealing with the consequences.

The Rights of Whistleblowers

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Advertising v. Privacy

In 2019, nearly every device and online account are following your every move. Your smartphone knows your exact location to send you accurate weather updates and lists of nearby restaurants. Google sends you traffic alerts for your drive home while you're sitting at work. Google Chrome saves your past searches to tailor the advertisements you see to your individual needs. Facebook stores demographic information to better fit your Facebook experience.

All of this information is stored to best pair the individual with companies. If a person shares on Facebook they are a dog lover from San Francisco, that person will begin to see more ads and information for dog-related businesses in San Fransisco. This presents this person with new information and resources they might not have been aware of. This person may log into Facebook and begin to see Chewy ads and realize that this is a brand they want to familiarize themselves with. In this case, tracking this person's likes and demographics was helpful in pairing them with an appropriate company. Most people don't have a problem when data mining benefits them. But when big corporations begin to sell and exchange people's personal data without their permission, it crosses a line.

In an article from Fast Company, a former executive of a global ad agency talks about his personal reasons for leaving the industry. He felt that advertising had become more about different websites extracting personal information from consumers than actually catering to the consumer's needs. He feels as if consumers are unknowingly being manipulated and stalked by corporations for sales. Websites like Facebook sell the data they collect from users to third-party sites for profit. Although this is outlined in their terms and conditions, most people do not know what they are reading because the agreement is written in legal jargon.

Advertising used to be about having the most creative execution and the best commercial spot during prime time to share your message. Now it is a competition of who can get the closest to the customer and point of purchase, and blast them with mediocre messages. Sometimes these ads are beneficial to the consumer, but most of the time they are annoying and creepy. Not everything that people like or search on the internet needs to send them ads. If a person searches "office supple stores near me", it does not mean that they want to see Staples and Office Max ads on every page after that.

With more and more personal information being stored online via clouds, it is becoming very dangerous to use websites that sell data. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have shopping features where people connect their credit cards or Paypal accounts to make purchases. What is stopping these platforms from scanning this information? Wouldn't it be beneficial to know which consumers can afford Honda and which can afford Audi?

As an aspiring advertising professional, it is difficult to trust the industry that I want to enter. There is a thin line between privacy and data mining that many companies and platforms tiptoe around. From an advertising standpoint, it is great to be able to pinpoint target audiences and reach only people likely to purchase your product. But from the consumer's perspective, it is difficult to know which sites to trust and what to share online. These companies and websites are one hack away from releasing very personal information, and at what cost?

"A Riot is the Language of the Unheard"

One of the most crucial speech theories is 'stable change'. Stable change states that by allowing people who feel angry and alienated to speak their mind which will lead to a less violent society. By allowing these people to comfortably express themselves, they will be less likely to react violently.

This has been seen recently in the international news of people in Spain and Chile setting trains and public spaces on fire to protest their personal beliefs. These people do not have the same liberties and freedoms as those living in the US, so when they finally get a chance to say something, its angry.

Stable change can also be seen in recent US news, where groups of people have been protesting the government and laws they don't agree with. Because there is a way for these people to relieve their anger and frustrations healthily, it is less likely that these people will act out with violence.

Stable change does not prevent violence, but it gives people a chance to speak up before the situation boils over. A recent example would be the riots in Baltimore following the arrest and murder of Freddy Gray. The Black Lives Matter movement had been protesting police brutality for years and these people had reached their turning point. It requires more than just letting people say how they feel, but the government needs to listen. Just allowing people to express their anger does not take away the anger. If the government does not ever listen to the complaints and make a change, protesters will turn to violence.

#TwitterIsBorn

In the early 2000s, social media was just barely over the horizon. Platforms like MySpace and Facebook have just begun and people were just starting to get used to posting online. Board members at the company Odeo were holding a brainstorming session for new ideas for a website. Jack Dorsey had the idea of individuals being able to use SMS to communicate with groups of people. Because of the shorthand typically used with SMS messages, 'Twttr" was born. Dorsey shared the first tweet on March 21, 2006, which read: "just setting up my twttr". The first users of "Twttr" were not completely sold on the idea and had a hard time understanding the concept. Besides, to effectively use "Twttr", you needed a strong group of followers.

In 2007, Twitter's popularity spiked from 20,000 tweets per day to almost 60,000. At the South by Southwest Interactive Conference, Twitter set up two huge TVs in the hallways streaming tweets. People would stop and read the tweets on the screens, and feel more compelled to tweet themselves. These users were the early adopters of Twitter and really saw the potential of the platform. The ease of being connected with everyone at the conference really appealed to these users and ultimately drove more people to the platform.

After this conference, Twitter blew up. In 2007, 400,000 tweets were shared quarterly over the service. By February 2010, 50 million tweets were being sent daily. At the time, Twitter had 70,000 registered users. By June of that year, 65 million tweets were being posted per day. Because of the boom of users, people were talking more than ever on the platform. Special trending events especially Twitter-friendly. The 2010 FIFA World Cup had fans tweeting about 2, 940 tweets per second. After the Lakers' victory in the 2010 NBA Finals, the record was then raised to 3,085 tweets per second. When Michael Jackson passed away, Twitter servers crashed because so many people were tweeting about Michael Jackson per hour. In 2012, Twitter celebrates its birthday with 140 million users and 340 million tweets being shared per day.

In the years to come, Twitter would take its power to new levels. In April of 2012, Twitter opened an office in Detroit with the goal of working with more automobile brands and advertising agencies. In January of 2013, Twitter launched the video-sharing service "Vine". Users were able to create 6-second clips and share them directly with their Vine profiles, as well as their Twitter feeds. Between 2011 and 2015, Twitter acquired several advertising agencies and increased its users and tweets exponentially.

After going public in 2013, Twitter has still been able to dominate social media and advertising. More and more users are joining the platform, but not at the incredible rates of 2010. Currently, Twitter has 330 million monthly active users (134 million daily users) with the average person spending about 3 minutes on the platform per session. 67% of all B2B businesses utilize Twitter as a marketing tool. 40% of users reported purchasing something that they have seen on Twitter. 500 million tweets are sent daily, with about 5 tweets being sent per second. 63% of Twitter users are between the ages of 35 and 65 years old, with 34% of users being female and 66% being male.

Twitter is definitely between its saturation to maturation phases. The average person already has an active Twitter account and uses it pretty regularly. The typical business or organization has a Twitter account that is used almost daily with updates and information. In order for Twitter to reach another monumental peak like in 2010 and 2014, Twitter will have to acquire another social media platform and bring some new innovative features to the platform. The acquisitions of Vine and Periscope gave Twitter a competitive edge that Facebook and Instagram could not quite compete with. If Twitter can stay ahead of other platforms, Twitter will always be an industry leader.

Sources
https://www.oberlo.com/blog/twitter-statistics

Help My Phone is Taking Over My Life

The advancements of technology in the 21st century have been remarkable. In a short span of twenty years, people have gone from watching prime-time shows once a week to binge-watching shows on streaming services, having to develop film over the course of a week to uploading albums of pictures by the second, and buying CDs from their favorite artists to streaming them on Spotify and Apple Music. These advancements have made life easier in some aspects, but in others, it has caused humans to devolve.

Young Millennials and Generation Zers have little to no recollection of life without technology. They always remember a TV being in the living room, at least one computer with internet access in the home, and maybe even a cell phone or two. The lives of those 30 years old and younger have quickly been impacted by the surge of technology. In this short time span, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, iPods, Blackberrys, Palm Pilots have all gone extinct and this group of people experienced every single change.

 Smartphones in 2019 do everything that several devices had that ten devices could do 20years ago. With this technology being so readily accessible, it is difficult to peel your phone out of your hand and let go. At any given time, you can check the news, listen to music, scroll through social media, check emails, review bank statements, play a game, order a package online, and take photographer worthy photos within seconds. By having all of these tools at our disposal, it has become clear that there is no real reason to break away from your phone, it does everything.

The problem with the smartphone epidemic of the 2010s is that it allows people to constantly share (and overshare) information throughout the day. Instagram influencers and VSCO girls have become the norm and what is acceptable by society. These people post without regard to anything but their self absorbed selves. With your phone being able to track so much information in such a small amount of time, it is virtually impossible to miss a beat.

In a world that revolves around technology, it is hard to unplug, especially if you've always had devices. The technology craze has driven the world crazy and there's no going back. What will the world become when technology reaches its peak?

The Innovation of Television

It's hard to imagine life without television. There was once a time where people had to gather all of their news and information by newspaper and radio and there was no way to show large audiences moving pictures with information.

Throughout the early 20th century, the TV made small steps in becoming what we know TV today. The first TV station, W3XK, was established in 1928, the first commercial premiered on BBC in 1930, and CBS, the first major network, is established. This allowed for messages to be shared with all audiences at the same time. Color TV is introduced in the 1950s and becomes common in the late 60s. This boom of color TV was just in time for the 1969 Moon landing which allowed nearly 600 million Americans to watch. In just a century, television has become a household item and changed the way people communicate.

With this new form of communication came new territory. A large battle that TV networks and producers struggled with was what to put on TV. In the 50s and 60, most shows shown on TV starred white actors. The only minorities seen were depicted as offensive stereotypes such as Black people being cast as slaves and servants, and Native Americans being cast as warriors in Westerns. The first show to have a 'regular' Black character was I Love Lucy, where the best friend was a black woman. The Nat King Cole Show utilized many black and minority performers throughout their run and is known for being one of the first integrated performance shows. Good Times and The Jeffersons were some of the first sitcoms starring average black families in the 70s.

With the push for more racial representation, women were pushing for more equal roles on television as well. Most women seen on TV were in stereotypical caretaker roles. For example, All In the Family starred Jean Stapleton as Edith Bunker, who played the role of the subservient and stupid wife. She went along with her husband's bigotry and never stood up for herself. The National Organization of Women (NOW) fought continuously for better representation of women on screen.

The censorship of television relies heavily on the issues that society is facing at the time. Many of the scenes that were too scandalous for prime-time usually dealt with some of these sensitive topics. Star Trek had a scene banned because it showed an interracial kiss between a white man and a black woman. Several skits from Saturday Night Live were banned because they made jokes about race, drugs, and the disabled. Dynasty had episodes banned because the writers wanted to make the main character and openly gay man. More recently, shows like South Park and Family Guy have had scenes and episodes banned for offensive religious jokes, abortion jokes, racist and sexist jokes, and just jokes being made on sensitive topics (i.e. jokes being made about the JFK assassination or Osama Bin Laden). These shows dared to venture into territory that society was not yet ready to be and thus the government had these shows cut the scenes. Television programs are protected under the First Amendment because they are consumable media that the cable providers and networks have decided to share. That being said, all messages shown on TV are protected and cannot be controlled by the government.

The invention of television has revolutionized the way information is communicated around the world. Lives news can be broadcasted from any location around the world and at an instant. With the rise of the TV being so strong, the downfall will be deadly. With the increase of streaming services, online media outlets, and cable networks streaming online, there is no necessity for the TV anymore. Millennials and Generation Z are buying fewer TVs and blowing off cable to the point of possible extinction. With the fall of television on the horizon, its a wonder where the TV will go next.

What is a 'Safe Space'?

In a 2013 article published on 'The American Conservative', Rod Dreher shares his take on first amendment rights on college campuses. In 2013, an LSU student posts a video in response to LSU doing away with the "Free Speech Quad". The free speech quad is an area designated by LSU where organizations and students can assemble to spread their messages. LSU has recently decided that this was too restrictive and is now allowing students to assemble all across campus. The student posting the video claims that it is overwhelming to have protesters everywhere and that it was easy to avoid protesters if you did not want to be bothered. Dreher writes that the student is inconvenienced because she would have to embrace opinions that differ from hers and that freedom of speech only applies when the majority agrees with you, and if not, you're unsafe.

Dreher writes about an experience he had while in college when he shared that he was 'pro-life' and sitting among people who identified as 'pro-choice'. The people he was sitting with immediately became uncomfortable and said that they felt 'unsafe' by him being there. Dreher writes that it is unfair how he must watch what he says due to 'offending' anyone who does not agree with him. The definition of community oppression is then provided, to further explain the argument for safe spaces:

Community oppression is oppression that one experiences within a community to which they belong. Example: A lesbian attends a house of worship that preaches homosexuality is a sin.

Dreher argues that it is unfair that his personal beliefs are considered'oppressive' if they offend another group of people. He believes that it is unfair to have to filter his own personal beliefs in compliance with other groups of people. He provides the example that if a teacher identifies as Christian and does not support the LGBTQ+ community, that teacher is then an oppressor. Dreher is outraged by this notion and how far schools and establishments will go to save 'safe spaces'.

The problem with the LSU student feeling violated by the free speech on her campus is that freedom od speech in a constitutional right that is recognized everywhere in the US. LSU is a public instittution and therefore must abide by most of the similar laws as other public accomadations. Just because she personally does not want to be bothered with people protesting and petitioning does not mean they do not have the right to be there.

As far as safe spaces go, it is a little absurd to accuse people with more conservative views as being 'oppressive' and 'scary'. Just because someone personally does not believe in LGBTQ+ relationships, does not make them a villain, however, this does not grant this person the right to spread hateful speech towards members of that community. When Dreher was sitting at the lunch table with his peers, he was not being malicious by saying he is pro-life. If Dreher were to go into a rant about how he hates women and how he believes women should be controlled by the government, then yes he is violating that group of women's safe space.

A safe space is a place designed for people to congregate freely without the fear of discrimination. Safe spaces are often discussed in relation to most schools who have gay-straight alliances and Black student unions as a place for marginalized groups of people to have a place on their campus where they can be who they are unapologetically. Safe spaces have shifted in meaning to be more accommodating towards protecting groups of people and their specific beliefs. For example, an animal rights group should have a safe space where they can assemble, but they are not entitled to this space because they are not a marginalized group of people. They cannot attack anyone who goes against their beliefs, because those are strictly opinions. Safe spaces were designed to protect students who face oppression based on their identity, not to protect strongly opinionated protesters.

By using words like 'safe spaces' and 'oppression' so loosely, it takes away from the magnitude of the situation. The US Constitution protects everyone's right to express their opinion, and just because it is an unpopular one does not mean they are oppressing or intruding on your safe space. So no white lady, having protesters on your campus is not oppression. Sorry, not sorry.

Is the Media Responsible for Fake News?

In a world where the media is watching its mouth, fake news has become the latest cardinal sin. If the media reports anything that is not entirely true, then the journalists and reporters are labeled with the daunting label of 'fake news'. But surprisingly enough, the main culprits in the fake news wave are ordinary people on social media. More misinformation is spread due to people sharing new stories attached to their biased opinions than media posting false stories.

According to a recent article published by Mashable, there is a glitch in Facebook's software which allows users to tamper with media content and change the message to fit their own personal views. For example, a user can take an article with the pinned image being a political figure, change the headline and then other users will share the link without fact-checking the source of the information. Changing the integrity of a headline on social media (Facebook especially) is dangerous because a shockingly high number of people only read the headline before they repost, not even bothering to open the article. This can be damaging to the reputation of media outlets because they are being linked to information they did not even publish.

 Fake news is also generated by the general population simply sharing opinionated editorials to Facebook and referring to them as true. The restrictions that opinion pieces and credible media outlets must abide by are vastly different and must be regarded as separate sources of information. For example, an opinion blog can post anything under the sun they want, no matter how biased or exaggerated it is. Credible news sources like CNN or MSNBC have limitations as to what they can say about certain issues and are required to back up their information with facts. When these opinionated blog posts are shared to other platforms, people just see the headline and picture and don't think twice about what they are posting. These mindless posts consequently share information to millions of people who are unaware that they are receiving false information.

In a world where it is easy to blame the liberals for spreading fake news, it is, in fact, the typical American's post on Facebook that spreads more false information.

The Supreme Court + Appointments

Since its founding, the US has fought hard to defend the rights of its citizens from a tyrannical government. Through a long process, the US finally adopted the US Constitution which outlines all of the basic human rights that citizens hold. This prevents the government from interfering in certain parts of a citizen's life and keeps the government in check. In order to make sure the government maintains a healthy amount of power, the Supreme Court was instated to interpret the Constitution and make sure no rights are being violated.

The Supreme Court of the US is under the Judicial Branch of the US government. Presidents appoint these members to the court where they are serving life terms. The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was John Marshall. Under Marshall, the Supreme Court handled the Marbury v. Madison case. This case established Judicial Review, meaning the Supreme Court has the power to review an act of Congress and determine it constitutional or unconstitutional. This gave the Supreme Court more power and made the Judicial Branch more authority to check the other branches of government.

The power of the Supreme Court is vital to the protection of human rights in the US. The Supreme Court has reviewed many important cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, McCulloch v. Maryland, Korematsu v. the US, and Roe v. Wade. These cases are all debating important issues affecting the lives of individuals. Without the Supreme Court, the government could have easily taken control of these cases and abused their power. For example, the McCulloch v. Maryland case was a debate over what implied powers state governments had. Without a Supreme Court ruling, Maryland could have easily won the first trial and taken control over its citizens. A powerful court system that is willing to go against the government is key in protecting the government from corruption.

Recently, there have been issues surrounding the appointment system of Supreme Court justices. In the last presidential election, Congress was trying to prevent President Obama from making an appointment because he was about to leave the office. This violates the constitution because, at the time, President Obama was still the elected president and it is the president's responsibility to make appointments. But many Republicans were arguing that it was not fair for President Obama to make such a permanent decision if he was about to leave the office. Similar to the modern struggles of interpreting the Constitution, it is hard to live by rules that were made hundreds of years ago. In the beginning, it was fitting to have justices serve life-terms because of the decisions that were being made. It was beneficial to have the same justices setting precedents because they doing so to protect the Constitution. In recent history, Supreme Court appointments have been deduced to filling Washington with a certain political party with similar views to have strong control over the people. For example, Donald Trump was considering appointing justices that held similar views to him, especially on abortion restrictions.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and set rulings that are for the people, not for your personal motives and political views. The Supreme Court was designed to protect all and defend the Constitution. This is not a way for politicians to weaponize their ideals and force them onto the country. Each US citizen is guaranteed rights under the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court's duty to make sure those rights are protected.