TikTok: Why all the Attention?

 

What app uses 15-60 second videos and has over 800 million monthly active users? If you guessed TikTok, you are correct! TikTok is without a doubt the hottest social media app of the present day, but why? How did it find success in a pool of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.? What makes it so attractive to young adults, and what are some of the concerns that people have about the app? Through the use of Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovations, we can take a closer look and attempt to theorize just that!

 

As previously stated, TikTok currently has over 800 million monthly active users, which is up 300 million from January 2019 as found by the “Digital 2020” report. But what explains the success? According to John Holdridge, “We've all gotten so caught up in maximizing reach by growing a massive fan base through subscribers or followers, so it's refreshing to have a platform with an algorithm that rewards content above all else.” The mega-app has become known for the ability to go “viral” over a single video, which means that if the content is good the audience will help it get noticed. This is a serious draw for many young adults who want to feel “famous” even if it’s only for a day. Kenny Trinh added his own thoughts on the matter, “it’s convenient to use. It’s far easier to edit and upload content in TikTok than in any other app such as Instagram or Snapchat. Anyone with a smartphone can easily create and post content.” This is exactly why TikTok would have attracted its early adopters. It’s easy to use and allows for anyone to gain instant popularity. On top of that, the short videos feed into the short attention span of younger generations. For many high school kids, they weren’t initially drawn to the product because of its similarity to the old app Musical.ly, which was an app where people lip-synched to music or funny sounds; however, when it was discovered that kids were using it more like “Vine”, older generations couldn’t wait to get their hands on it. Now kids had the easy accessibility, the quick entertainment, and the old ambiance of Vine, a crowd favorite in the social media world. With all the draw, however, some people choose not to participate in the use of the app.

It’s no secret that more and more kids are glued to their phones as if they’ll miss something major if they put it down for more than 2 minutes. It’s also no secret that social media plays a huge role in the skyrocketing screen time. Many adults, they don’t like feeling attached to something that they lived without for so many years, especially when they know that it might affect their self-confidence or their ability to focus. Another reason some individuals make the decision not to use the app involves privacy concerns. From Geoffrey Fowler’s point of view, “TikTok doesn’t appear to grab any more personal information than Facebook.” that being said, many people are still uncomfortable with any data being tracked at all. It’s especially hard not to raise a brow when whole governments have either banned or considered banning, the app within the country. With those downsides, what would be a benefit?

As a user of the app, I watch both informative videos as well as pure comedic content. For example, one clip might be a joke about something we all used to do as kids and the next video could explain music theory and a chord progression that I could use on my guitar. The app can be what you make it. If you want videos that directly relate to a specific topic, you can make it happen, if you want a variety of topics being covered you can make it happen. Make no mistake, the app is by no means a necessity; however, it can be nice to scroll through a couple of quick videos that help to educate you or simply make you laugh. It comes down to personal preference. Are you comfortable with the data collecting? Is it interfering with your ability to get work done? Is it having a profound impact on your self-confidence/ mental health? For some users the positive outweighs the negative, for others, they aren’t comfortable involving themselves with it (which is absolutely okay). 

Overall, you have to ask yourself if the app is benefitting you or distracting you from what really needs to be done. It’s okay to have fun and relax, but it’s also extremely important that you keep an eye on what tech companies could be doing to potentially harm you or lure you into endless scrolling of videos. And remember, you lived without it before, so if push comes to shove you can certainly live without it again!

Sources:

TikTok: Why The Enormous Success?

 

Is It Time To Delete TikTok? A Guide to the Rumors and the Real Privacy Risks

Cutting the Cord

 

It’s incredible how almost everyone I know has a TV at their home and yet when I ask my friends what they watch they respond with Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Prime Video, Disney +, etc. With all the TV that is produced so many of us simply watch it through streaming services now. For the most part, there aren’t any commercials, we don’t have to endlessly scroll through channels to find something to watch, and most importantly, we tend to pay for shows and movies that we actually watch. Cable is expensive, and in most cases, you pay a huge fee to watch a small portion of the channels they give you. Take my family, for example, we love watching the Premier League; however, we can only have access to that channel and all of the games if we pay for a cable package. We consistently watch maybe 3-4 other channels and yet when I hit the guide button, I have to endlessly scroll through uninteresting channels to get to the few that my family likes. This is the exact reason that cord-cutting has had such a significant rise in recent years. Cord-cutting is the process of canceling your cable subscription or getting rid of your landline telephone, and with the rise in streaming services, and practically everyone having a cell phone, it’s easier than ever to “cut the cord”. When it comes down to it, people “cut the cord” for two reasons: to save money, and because they are dissatisfied with the service of the cable/satellite company. With the rise in streaming services, many people would much rather pay a small fee each month for unlimited access to shows and movies they’ll actually watch rather than a huge fee for a cable company that gives them mostly a pile of crap channels. Not surprisingly many people have caught onto this and data shows that many individuals simply watch shows on their computers or tablets. The number of Zero-TV homes rose 150% between 2007 and 2012, from 2 million to 5 million. On top of that, the number of landline subscribers fell 55% between 2002 and 2012 in New York State. Now, there are some drawbacks to cord-cutting. One is the example I gave of my family using cable to watch soccer because otherwise, we can’t watch the games. In some situations, you simply won’t have access to certain content on streaming services. For some individuals, they like having access to news broadcasting channels, and often times you just won’t have those on streaming platforms. At the end of the day, cord-cutting is becoming increasingly popular, and we are most likely headed down a path of entertainment being entirely streamed through services like Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Disney +, etc. Cable companies are on thin ice and it’s only a matter of time before it breaks. 

Source:

Cord Cutting

Facebook: The Connecter or the Destroyer?

 

It’s hard to imagine that what started as a means of connecting the world, expanded into not only one of the largest social media sites to have ever existed, but has played a role in the most impactful first amendment experiment in history. Getting its start at Harvard, Facebook went from having the support of a handful of college kids to being the first global connecter the world had ever seen; however, when your goal is to reach as many people as possible, it’s easy to be focused on what could go right instead of what could go wrong. 

 

As Facebook continued to gain the support of more people, Zuckerberg and his team continued to make updates to the software. These updates included features like "newsfeed", your own personalized newspaper featuring the stories you would be most interested in, and the like button, which allowed Facebook so see what you did and did not find “enjoyable”. With these updates came massive revamping of Facebook’s artificial intelligence systems. Through endless mathematical equations, Facebook was able to develop algorithms that would take your “likes” and essentially continue to spit out similar content on your newsfeed. It was designed to keep you scrolling which meant more ads being shown, which meant more money was being made. 

 

As Facebook was gaining a larger audience and higher engagement than ever before, they would soon become a beacon of light to individuals who finally felt like they could be heard. Across the world, tensions were rising in Egypt between civilians and the violent regime. Using their resources, a handful of people created a Facebook page to expose the wrongdoings of the regime and the mistreatment of the Egyptian people. The page, for lack of a better word, blew up. A never-ending stream of “likes” rolled in and anti-regime posts filled the newsfeeds of hundreds of thousands of people. Events were developed and shared and before you could even comprehend what was happening, thousands upon thousands of individuals stormed the streets of Egypt, demanding the downfall of the regime. Within just 18 days, their wish was granted, and the regime was no more. 

 

Internally, Facebook was more than excited to have been the primary tool used to organize such events and allow for such use of speech, but it was only a matter of time before the high began to rapidly fall. Back in Egypt, tensions skyrocketed, riots were rampant, and the polarization between civilians and those who wanted an Islamic state was at an all-time high. During this time, it was found that some of the largest pages related to the situation, were telling outright lies. Simultaneously, it was discovered that the more passion or anger you showed in your posts or responses, the more extreme material you would receive on your newsfeed. The tool that had brought so much justice, was now ripping people apart. When Facebook received concerns about the algorithms and their helping hand in the polarization of content, it seemed they would rather discuss themselves as the solution than take credit for their part in the problem. 

 

So my question is this, how do we bring people together when the two groups arguing are seeing two different versions of the truth? How do we pull ourselves out of this imaginary world, when we don’t know we’re living in it? In the United States, we are more polarized than ever before, and yet when asked about their role in it, Facebook claims that it’s the solution, not the problem. So, step away and allow yourself to see not only the content you like and dislike, but allow yourself to see the problem in its truth. Permit yourself to witness the reality of the situation without being rewarded for lashing out. Give yourself the space to see the news as it is and not the altered newsfeed Facebook uses to keep you attached at the hip.  

Source:

The Facebook Dilemma 

Why is Antiwar a No Go Story in the Media?

 

One has to be rather foolish if they promote war. Since the beginning of humanity, war has taken the lives of millions of men, women, and children. It has destroyed entire towns and has left cities abandoned in rubble. Just in the past century, the United States has been in World War 1, World War 2, the Vietnam War, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. In many of these wars, millions of brave men and women had their blood spilled for our country, and yet political elites seem to love giving them occasional praise rather than focusing on getting them out. One doesn’t have to pay much attention to notice that antiwar is hardly ever a topic that newspapers and networks shine a spotlight on, but why? If you take ten minutes to read about the conditions that many of these soldiers have to live through, you will know that it extends far beyond muddy boots and wet clothes. It’s endless phycological trauma, which not only affects them during the war but their transition back to “normal” life when the war ends. It also takes minimal effort to gather a basic understanding of how damaging wars can be to not only the economy but the individual liberties that a U.S. citizen is granted. For example, In WWII, the government thought it was a good idea to place Japanese Americans in concentration camps, in the event that they were colluding with the Japanese. This violated their first amendment rights in so many ways it’s rather disgusting to think about. So, what does the government get out of promoting war? Well, it’s common sense that taxation will skyrocket, and if there is one title the government deserves, it's greedy.  Power can be an addictive thing and most often our political “intellectuals” fall into the deep state that is Washington, D.C. The news doesn’t make money off of happy sunshine and rainbow stories, they make money off of stories that scare people senseless. It’s why election years, serial killers, viruses, and any other over-exaggerated story is a goldmine for news companies. They want things to go south because they aren’t the innocent civilians on the other side of the fallen sword. Broadcasting antiwar voices means a perspective that arguably cuts thousands if not millions of dollars from their viewing profits and potentially sends a sort of “screw you” message to the government. Lord knows we can’t possibly have that! Luckily, there are sites such as Antiwar.com and American Conservative to share opinions related to war policy and the dangers that come from them; however, they won’t be talked about widely, so it is important that we as citizens educated ourselves on the matter. The government can’t hide the truth when its people ask questions and apply pressure where it hurts. We are in control, but only if we hold our elected officials to a higher standard and ask questions regardless of the answer we might get. 

The First Amendment and Protests

 

Whether you like it or not, 2020 was a huge year for Black Lives Matter. Protests rose all over the country in the wake of George Floyd's death. From dances, music, food, and public speakers, the gatherings oftentimes offered many different forms of entertainment while trying to spread their message of equality; however, a portion of protests used questionable methods of action. 

In an article by Shahrukh Alam, one of these incidents was discussed. In 2016, a BLM activist, DeRay McKesson, organized a protest on the highway outside of a police station in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. What is important to note, by way of two clauses of the first amendment, is that everyone has the right to peaceably assemble and use their freedom of speech to protest; nevertheless, it is also critical that those protesting, are aware of the workings of speech/action dichotomy. Within this concept, it states that almost all free speech is protected, and action is frequently unprotected; however, when the action is peaceable and sending a non-vocal message, it can sometimes move to the protected side of the scale. In Mckesson’s situation, the Louisiana law states that you may only disturb the traffic if you have the appropriate permits. This is a step that wasn’t taken by Mr. McKessen and, therefore, the action was unprotected. When the police arrived to break up the event, violence broke out when a protester threw rocks at an officer, causing him to lose teeth and suffer injuries to other areas of his face. At this point, not only has the gathering become violent rather than peaceful, but they didn’t have the appropriate papers to be there in the first place. Several arrests were made including that of Mr. McKesson. 

It was later that the District Court of Louisiana declared that disruption of traffic was only a misdemeanor and that at no point did McKesson call for, or encourage, violence. They also stated that Mr. McKesson could not be held liable for any action taken by other protestors simply because he initiated the gathering. When it comes to the first amendment, Mr. McKesson and his fellow peers were right in voicing their opinions, but wrong in terms of where they chose to do so. The separation of protected speech and unprotected action can sometimes get blurry, but in this case, the law is clear, and had Mr. McKesson had the appropriate permit he would have been golden (providing it continued to be a peaceful protest). Never stop voicing your opinions but do be aware of the actions you take while doing so. We were meant to criticize our government, but maybe stopping traffic isn’t the best way of doing so. 

Source:

Can Protesters Block a Road? An Incomplete Log of Protest Jurisprudence 

The History and Impact of the World Wide Web

 As a nineteen-year-old, it’s hard to imagine life without the internet. It seems like almost every aspect of my life is intertwined on the web. From picking my next book to planning a weekend trip with my friends, the World Wide Web offers me information on everything. So how did something so expansive get its start, and how did it go from a few sites to holding valuable information on just about every topic and philosophy there is?

 

Oxford University graduate, Tim Berners-Lee, is responsible for this truly groundbreaking creation. As a software engineer at CERN, Tim became increasingly frustrated by the difficult task that was sharing information back and forth with other engineers and scientists. This is where the World Wide Web got its original purpose. In the early spring of 1989, Tim wrote a document called “Information Management: A Proposal”, which laid out his early idea of creating a universal system that allowed all employees access to information from a variety of studies and experiments. Surprisingly, Tim’s idea didn’t catch the attention of many of his coworkers; however, his boss decided to give him time to work on the complex idea and strengthen the ways in which it would work. By the end of 1990, Berners-Lee had developed the three fundamental components of the Web: HTML (HyperText Markup Language), URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), and HTTP (HypeText Transfer Protocol). Now, Tim was onto something! Just after these developments, the first web page was published and in early 1991, people were invited to join the new Web community. It was off to an incredible start, but it was 1993 that sent the Web into an entirely new era of innovation. The Web offered the platform for sharing information, but it wasn’t very user-friendly. This is where Marc Andreessen came in. He developed a Web browser called Mosaic which used the “point-and-click” graphics manipulations to allow for easier Web surfing. At this same time, CERN announced that the Web would be FREE and open to the public. This was historical because it meant that anyone with access to a basic computer had access to any and all public sites published on the Web. At this point, both companies and the everyday person were hungry to get their hands on this new technology and by 2014, two in five people were using the Web daily. 

 

So how fast did it grow exactly? Well in June of 1993, there were only 130 websites; however, in December of the same year, the number of websites doubled. In 1994, there were over 2,700 sites and within 4 years it leaped to 650,000. Today there are over one billion sites and growing. With this massive expansion of shared information, hundreds of thousands of topics were/are being discussed, viewed, and shared. There are two main industries, however, that have felt the impact like no other: Healthcare and learning/teaching. In a study called, “The Doctor, the patient and the world-wide-web: how the internet is changing healthcare”, they pointed out that a survey showed that 60-80% of web users have searched it for health information and two-thirds of web users looking for said health information has claimed it had an impact on their healthcare decisions. Beyond that, teaching and learning have changed in hundreds of ways. In a study by Farrokh Mamaghani, he expressed the benefits of online courses and how the low cost and easy accessibility offer an option for hundreds of less fortunate people to have access to otherwise unavailable education. Mamaghani also explained that the Web has allowed students to study and use resources in ways never done before, for example, Khan Academy (a free math and science educational tutoring program) has allowed kids to improve or study math and science when their teacher isn’t readily available. The use of technology with the web has also given younger generations so much visual stimulation that they tend to be primarily visual learners. 

 

The web is still changing and improving today! Within several years/decades, we can expect to see the first open-access educational classes, wearable technology that connects directly to the web (such as glasses) and even improved intelligent personal assistants. The web is at this point, unavoidable for the everyday American, and it will only continue to attach itself to the other more distant aspects of our lives. 

 

Sources:

 

What Will the Future Internet Look Like?

Webfoundation.org

Globalnews.ca

The Doctor, the Patient and the World-Wide Web: How the Internet Is Changing Healthcare

The Impact of the World Wide Web on Teaching and Learning 

Spinoza's "Stable Change"

 

It seems that today it’s a rare occasion to state an opinion without automatically being labeled as a member of a political party. School, entertainment, sports, work, and just about every other aspect of life has become increasingly political, with the concern of saying the wrong thing weighing on us like wet clothes. It’s bizarre to think about how the country that offers people the freedom of speech has become ever judgmental when one chooses to use it. As children, we are constantly told that millions of people all over the world risk everything to come to this country almost exclusively for the rights given to them in the First Amendment of the Constitution, and more specifically the freedom of speech. This precious right has been the center of intellectual philosophy for quite some time with men like John Milton, Alexander Meiklejohn, Edwin Baker, etc. each stating their reasoning as to why the protection of free speech is so vital to a flourishing government, but it is Benedict Spinoza’s concept of “stable change” that particular stood out to me. Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher, believed that free speech allows individuals to vent when frustrated with the government and that if this ability was taken away from them, the anger and annoyance would boil over into violent outbursts. He also made the point to discuss how allowing such verbal release enabled the government to be more aware of groups that could potentially cause actual damage to the community through acts of forcefulness. If people don’t feel like they can voice their opinions, then they will surely act in ways to make them unavoidable. 2020 was a year of many, many things but perhaps the loudest feature of its personality was the peoples' use of violence while attempting to make their opinions inescapable. The most recent example of this is the capital riot that took place on January 6^th, 2021. This event happened for several reasons, but perhaps the most prominent reason the originally peaceable gathering turned violent was their extreme frustration with what they felt was extreme censorship. GOP pollsters have found that censorship is the primary topic lighting up the conservative platform. Conservatives are tired of seeing ordinary, hardworking people lose their jobs and livelihood because they simply stated an opinion that their higher-ups didn’t agree with. Murdoch, who is the chair of News Corporation, which owns the New York Times, published a story discussing Hunter Biden during the presidential race and was shunned, attacked, and countlessly mocked by big tech companies in just about every way. Murdoch’s response was, “too many people have fought too hard in too many places for freedom of speech to be suppressed by this awful woke orthodoxy.” When analyzing the percentage of U.S. adults that believe that censorship is occurring, the Pew Research Center found that 3 quarters of adults believe that it is either highly likely or somewhat likely that social media sites are indeed going after political viewpoints that they don’t agree with. When taking a closer look at conservatives, 9-10 Republicans and independents that lean towards the Republican party, say that it’s at least somewhat likely that media platforms are censoring their political viewpoints. If we don’t allow for conversation and all viewpoints to be presented on media sites, then we have failed as citizens to fight back and protect the rights that make this country a beacon of light to so many. It is Spinoza’s philosophy that warns against the dangers of violent outcomes, and yet it is this philosophy that has been lost under years and years of constitutional abuse. 

 

Sources:

Easley, Jonathan. "Conservatives Lean Into Warnings On 'Wave Of Censorship'". Thehill, 2021, https://thehill.com/homenews/media/536000-conservatives-lean-into-warnings-on-wave-of-censorship. Accessed 4 Feb 2021.

 

Emily A. Vogels, Andrew Perrin, Monica Anderson. "Most Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/. Accessed 4 Feb 2021.