Social Media, I forget the world wasn't always like this 

Social Media is utterly complex and dynamic. Here's one phenomenon that tears lives apart at the time brings people together, that both disgusts and intrigues us, informational yet arbitrary and stupid. Social media is such a conflicting presence. It's absolutely evil but ingenious and all too transformative / powerful to abandon it now. It is truly remarkable. However, it's the people and corporations -- our societal and cultural values as a whole-- that harnesses these contradictory capabilities, creating the dichotomy we see within the realm of social media today. Users and makers, consumers and corporations, are the controllers; we the consumers, and them the corporations, rely on supply and demand. If we demand, markets listen, society shifts. So while we may be technically in control, we still lack all self-control in this situation. We indulge in platforms and propaganda, adhering to the rules set before us… look like this, buy that, be this, do that… it's all so demanding and pressuring. Some say to have a big online presence, some say don’t, some say that business like that stuff, some say business hate it, no one's to trust and everything is uncertain. Social media certainly doesn't help to clear things up for us. Yet, we are ever so reliant on it. In fact, we've capitalized and utilized it for transformation, revolution, opportunity, entrepreneurship, anything imaginable between stupid and spectacular. So despite its evils, and there are many (privacy, censorship, false news, misinformation, dangerous online groups, etc.) we can't turn our backs on social media, we can only reinvent and push it through phases of transformation and adaptation. 

Personally, I maintain an active online presence. I was born in the era of cell phones and Instagram, it's second nature to me. I use social media primarily to easily access / connect to various resources and information pertaining to my interests (mainly career and academic wise) as to stay up to date with all things revolving in my world. I'll never be the last to know. These accounts are always kept private. I try to keep my personal content at surface level. I don’t post anything private or personal. I'll repost a lot of material (things I think are neat and unique) but I'll never divulge anything past that (except for the occasional advocating rant… just in case anyone is actually reading). I'm aware of outward perception and I never want quick glances and judgements to be anything other than typical and ~wholesome~ in other words. It took me a while to fully develop my online presence and know how I want to act and be perceived as. It took a good amount of trial and error to figure out not only my online identity, but my content curation and activeness in general. Now, I'm satisfied with how I use and consume social media, never finding it hard to go on content binges or unplugging for a few months depending. Needless to say, I can put down the phone if need be. Before this however, as a younger person growing up in such a social media heavy era, I messed up and made stupid mistakes (thankfully none that were life-altering). But more importantly, I saw others make even worse mistakes, which in turn, prompted me to be aware of all the dangers + powers associated with such an all encompassing phenomenon. I started conscious practice on my awareness of social media use and its impact. It must have been interesting enough to make me want to pursue a career in media and popular culture, so I can thank it in part for that.   

The bottom line is, teaching kids and adults, literally anyone in general, any semblance of media literacy and precautions, is truly beneficial. There's a need for more open discussion on the impact of social media and how polarizing it can be; this starts with the individual responsibility of consumers / users and accountability, then amendment, from corporations who exploit these consumers. All said and done, social media is useful if you want it to be and damaging when you allow it to be. We all need to think of our impact to society and our relationship with companies, conducting our lives from there. And remember, don't ever advertise if you have something to lose; the less anyone knows about you, the better, because only a few people actually deserve to know you… and that goes for everyone really (in my opinion at least).     

Innovations... the Impact of Netflix  

Netflix. New shifts in TV consumption created the birth of streaming platforms. This creative disruption has its roots in changing consumer habits. The influx of interest in transmedia storytelling and a heavy emphasis on prolonged narrative structures, made binge-watching a commonplace trend in media. Netflix, drawing influences from archival movie features, such as on-demand, fused with production originals and series fostering the binge-worthy appetite, inevitably became widely successful. All these factors made Netflix extremely alluring to consumers as now all their watching habits could be brought together under one, easily accessible platform. Even by offering a base of five accounts, Netflix successfully marketed their affordability too. 

So how does this relate to Roger Everett's Diffusion of Innovations Theory. The theory explains how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. In order for a innovation to penetrate the social atmosphere of our culture and consumer trends, four main elements are needed: the innovation, communication channels, time (obviously), and a social system (innately). Pertaining to the success of Netflix, the innovation itself was popular given its varying features (movie base, series, and originals, renting options, and profile creations). Next, a communication channel. This was easy, as the internet serves as a massive communication channel. App creation contributed greatly to this as well. Accessing Netflix through your browser and compatible forms on an app, surpasses device complications as every phone, computer, or tablet can access the platform with simple internet connection. Its maneuverability with syncing profiles to TVs was also crucial in establishing Netflix's successful roots. Following channels, time is needed to allow the innovation to reach all parts of the nation, and in Netflix's case, the world. Netflix was originally created in 1997. Being 2020, and us aware of how heavily we rely on the platform and just how many of us hold accounts (typically everyone you know…) Netflix has afforded itself with enough time to allow the innovation to be popularized and internally reinvented to appease audiences' growing concerns and wishes for the product's adaptability. Lastly, a social system… the influence of TV and film was already heavily ingrained in our culture and society as our dependency on technology exponentially took off. The film industry and TV was always constantly adapted to fit modern media consumption habits. This was because media is typically the main source that masses derive their information and entertainment from. It surpasses geographical, monetary, and social concerns as information is easily accessible from the comforts and confines of your home, room, or any other place you chose to access media from. Netflix utilized this dependency to create a widely successful innovation, that today, generates mass profit and funds a plethora of projects worldwide. 

Netflix was methodical in its consumer relatability. Many became early adopters of this innovation because it combined a variety of popular consumer habits together in one neat package… again offering a preliminary five profiles (this makes it family friendly and seemingly more affordable). Early adopters hopped on the trend quick and paved the way for later consumers who were finally convinced that streaming platforms were the new way of things. People began to realize that paying for channels on cable could easily be replaced with a monthly amount that offered more variety in content and viewership. This was Netflix's goal.

Now, the downside… Netflix, like Disney, are ever growing platforms that consume many productions, fund projects, and buy up other platforms. This can be dangerous as media conglomerations begin to form. This is reminiscent of industry monopolies; the mass control of all aspects of an industry under one corporation. There is a reason why our government put bans on monopolies (Yeah Rockefeller had a huge one on oil). Monopolies will generate mass profits and take away all competition which directly goes against America's capitalistic values. Regarding media, conglomerations are dangerous in the sense that they can impose ideological beliefs easier into our society and culture by producing media content all with the same messaging and commentary on something. In other words, these conglomerations have the power to sway how our culture thinks based on the media it produces, being that it controls all those channels and platforms of production. This is something us as heavy media consumers must always be aware of… know the social implications!  

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Netflix-Inc 

Talking About ~Speech Theories~ 

I find the Self-Fulfillment Theory of the Eight 

Values of Free Speech very important. We are all aware that freedom of speech is a means of expression. However, this theory dives deeper into this concept and emphasizes the aspect of human dignity and autonomy. The theory justifies that, "the protection of freedom of speech for reasons that are not connected directly to the collective search for truth or the processes of self-government, or for any other conceptualization of the common good" (Smolla). In other words, speech is protected not because of a collective good, but rather because of the value it has to the individual. The right to speak your mind, precisely just because it is your mind and to a certain extent the capacity to think, share, create, and imagine, is something we need to culturally emphasize in our society. I find this especially intriguing considering this aspect of speech or rather, the cognitive function to be self-reflective and maintain conscious thought, is truly what separates us from animals. Our ability to be meta-cognitive, consciously aware of our thinking, and our understanding of free-will is what puts the human race in superiority despite our biological weaknesses that most animals have over us. Speech is simply just the mechanism in which we may express and articulate this free-will, meta-cognition, and consciousness in general. For this reason, words and linguistics are extremely powerful tools (at times weapons) to utilize in not only self-advocacy but in identity and agency. Speech is the common mean (despite language barriers) in which we may connect and voice ourselves. This theory specifically highlights this dynamic and emphasizes the importance of it in regard to our "central capacity to reason and wonder" (Smolla). 

Our cognitive functions are truly remarkable. Sadly enough, many do not realize the gravity of this miraculous feature humanity possesses and how transformative its utilization can be. The mind has the ability to reason, emphasize, innovate, and create the seemingly impossible. Through thought, different forms of expression arise. From math to studio art and even film, all these forms of expression find their roots within free thought and the ability to use that thought to create new original concepts, ideas, and compositions. If we were to categorize this phenomenon, we could justify it as freedom in general. Freedom to be able to explore your mind, whether its mathematically rooted, scientifically intrigued, or creatively driven, is this innate human right. The "right to think is the beginning of freedom…" this is why "speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought’’ (Smolla). C. Edwin Baker was the main name driving this theory of Self-Fulfillment, for he was well aware of not only its moral impact, but its importance in outward perception and expression. As stated before, speech is protected for no grander reason other than because of its value to the individual, its innate aspect of the expression of the mind simply because it's one's mind. Truly, our minds are to be prioritized as they hold the key to all solutions of this world. It is only a matter of how we utilize our thoughts to arrive at those solutions.

Unfortunately, there are those who use their mind, and to a further extent their speech, to cause harm and create negativity. However, the risk of evil and wrong-doing can never out justify the good that conversely follows. The bad may be necessary in order to find the good. And if free speech was not protected for this reason, then half the remedies, transformations, and miracles we have found and were able to express due to amazing minds, would be lost amongst us; that would truly be the worst injustice we could ever impose on ourselves.  

References:

Smolla, Rodney A.“ Self-Fulfillment Theory of Free Speech.” Civil Liberties and Civil Rights in the United States, uscivilliberties.org/themes/4465-self-fulfillment-theory-of-free-speech.html.   

First Amendment Theorists, media.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/jb3163/theorists.html. 

The Power of the Printing Press 

The Printing Press, a simple machine that applies pressure to an inked surface on a print medium, revolutionized how we share, spread, and create our communication. This invention made the mass production of texts possible and therefore, the speed in which we gain information exponentially increased. Before the printing press, hand copying works or block printing (originated by the Chinese monks) was the method used to produce literature, pamphlets, or other texts. These methods, although innovative for their time and classic, took more resources and further human intervention to be able to do. The Printing Press minimized these factors of time and human error. 

The presentations in class stated that the Gutenberg Bible was the first work produced from the Printing Press. Johannes Gutenberg was the man who made the Printing Press in Germany during the 15th century. Because of him, the rapid sharing of knowledge all throughout Europe kickstarted the way we produce and consume information today. There are even still some original Gutenberg Bibles left in circulation. Not only did Gutenberg heighten the speed of modern day communication with his invention, but also helped to reduce mass illiterate rates as more people had access to different works of text now. Before, only the elite classes or people who could afford to buy texts had access to printed information. Now, with the introduction of the Printing Press, mass production in which aided supply and demand, made these resources possible to a variety of demographics outside the upper-elite. Illiterate groups of people now had entry into this realm of a socioeconomic based intellectual hierarchy.

Such a simple invention managed to completely revolutionize the world in multiple ways. Since the creation of the Printing Press, we have used its technological impact as a foundation for our modern communications. Without such an innovative advancement, the way we share and spread our ideas could have been vastly different than how we are familiar with it today. So, instead of celebrating medial accomplishments, such as Christopher Columbus's unoriginal discovery of the Americas, we should be revering heroes such as Gutenberg for their extremely impactful contributions to modern society… just a thought and suggestion.          

https://www.livescience.com/43639-who-invented-the-printing-press.html 

Pigeons...the underrated transformer of the world  

In the rich history of the Evolution of Communication Technology, many notable inventions can be studied. From the printing press to mores code, humanity has found newer and more innovative ways to spread, share, connect, and transfer information from one place to another. If we trace the evolution of technology back to its origins of hieroglyphics and cruciform alphabets, one "invention" worth acknowledging, that is still used to this day, would be that of the Carrier Pigeon. This useful and dynamic bird has been used for communication purposes since the beginning of time. The earliest record of the Carrier Pigeon's use is around 776 BC. Many ancient civilizations and world conquerors such as the Greeks, Romans, and the Mongolians used Carrier Pigeons as a pivotal role in the establishment of their empire and culture. If anything, Carrier Pigeons are reminders to humanity of just how strong we can create and form bonds with other species on this earth.

The reasoning for the pigeon's indisputable popularity in sharing information is because, similar to that of horses, pigeons have unique homing abilities. The urge to return to the place that it once came from and the reliability of the animal's flight patterns innately, makes this animal extremely valuable and useful in human correspondence. Especially between two locations not easily reached by foot or any other conventional communication method such as boat or wagon, pigeons become a relatively economically sound, easy, and reliable method to effectively deliver a message. The Mongolians especially relied on not just pigeons, but hawks and falcons too, to not only share information from their mountain posts down to the vast plains of the land, but for hunting and chasing as well. These special birds were gradually recognized more and more as an important asset to subtle communication when war time would come. Too dangerous to send an actual messenger out for relaying important details from one battalion to another, carrier pigeons were used exponentially more. The minimization of risk in losing just a pigeon made them very appealing and in 1917, The United States of America, invested heavily in this mode of communication during World War I. The subtle, non-suspicious nature of a simple pigeon flying in the sky, made crucial messages easier to deliver without fear of human intervention successfully. So successfully, that the United States and many other countries like Great Britain and France, invested in carrier pigeon programs with breeding, training, and more. Pigeons were again used all throughout World War II having the program finally discontinued in the late 50's as the cusp of technology roared on.

Today, Carrier Pigeons are still used for minor things such as delivering blood to remote locations in France or for spotting shipwrecks from helicopters -- due to their 360-degree visual plane abilities -- in the U.S. Occasionally, these innocently talented animals are used by drug rings to mule products around as distribution. Whatever the use may be, there is one undeniable thing. This form of communication, whether 'outdated' in modern society's terms or not, is reliable, easy, and consistent in nature; allowing for these animals and their abilities to maintain relevancy across decades of human technological advancement.      

• https://www.pigeoncontrolresourcecentre.org/html/the-pigeon-in-history.html
• https://vassallohistory.wordpress.com/carrier-pigeons/

What Do Our Laws Stand For...

Through our class' discussion on the Progressive Era, I started thinking about the 1st amendment in new ways. More specifically, I was interested in concepts such as Expressive Action, Incitement, and other maneuvers that bend the limitations, power, and reach of an amendment or law. These little loopholes or legislative add-ons are the ways in which law-makers in cases use their power and manipulation of the law to better pertain to their case of argument. We saw this especially with the curving of the 14th Amendment to help the railroad corporation in the Santa Clara Railroad case where a "person" under the 14th Amendment can be applied to a corporation. 

A recent case I was reading about in the news regarded the settlement between the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the University of North Carolina. The case revolved around the Silent Sam monument, a confederate soldier, and its being removed from the campus. After protesters came and stormed the site, brining down and removing the monument on the grounds that it symbolized hate and white-centric ideology, the school and the SCV came to a settlement of 2.5 million dollars. However, protesters and students challenged the settlement deal which reopened the debate. The judge dealing with the case asserted that the Sons of Confederate Veterans had no right initially to bring the lawsuit about. A group of the school's students rallied together, partnering with the Lawyer's Committee For Civil Rights Under Law to intervene in the dealings. The sentiment seemed to be the restoration of normalcy on the campus as well as to "protect public safety of the university community". Evidently, the student body was angered by the symbolism the monument stood for and used their democratic voice to bring at least a sliver of justice to the case. Many were unsatisfied by the settlement amount, which prompted the Judge to void the initial agreement.

I agree with the students and question why there was a settlement to begin with. If a physical monument represents old ideologies, there is no point in keeping it up. If anything, this is implicative of the still racial animosity between demographics. For in a different context, this would be synonymous to Germany still giving tribute to Hitler or any other Nazi symbolism through a monument, which would just be absurd. I like how different committees used their agency and ability to reject a ruling. However, quite unlike the 14th Amendment debacle and the many ways to manipulate and take advantage of our legislative assertions, this case demonstrates a more justified challenging of the law.     

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/482827-judge-voids-uncs-silent-sam-monument-agreement   

Muy Blanco

As another year passes, another Oscar Ceremony shall too. In past years, criticism of racial inclusiveness and better diversity throughout the awards has always been a hot debate. This year, the 2020 Oscars, is of no exception. The inspiration behind this specific blog post topic started with my seeing of the nominees for Best Supporting Actress. As a media production and popular cultural studies major, I try to understand how issues of representation unfold and what that means to our society. Immediately, I saw not one person of color amongst the nominees… This is troubling knowing that the films released and qualified for the award ceremony, had some amazing representation of intersectionality within them  (films like Parasite, Harriet, Dolemite is My Name, The Farewell, etc.) however, this aspect did not equate to the many nominations across all categories this year. Especially for Best Actor in a leading role / Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress / Supporting Actress, the diversity is almost nonexistent. The sole person of color nominated out of these four categories is Cynthia Erivo for her role as Harriet Tubman in the 2019 release, Harriet. And it's not just a racial issue (although it is still very much one). A lot of female representation for Best Director is also lacking. The absence of inclusiveness is blatant this year, sparking some much deserved criticism. Cynthia Erivo spoke out, saying it has been "bittersweet" to catch this nomination as the only person of color up there. Erivo also made the powerful statement that she wanted to "serve as an example of how we need to judge these films". 

The Oscar Committee itself has made statements in the past that they were taking measurements to be more inclusive, conveying more diverse representation amongst nominations and categories. However, they seem to have missed the follow through on those assertions… once again. Sentiments of inequality runs high fresh after the BAFTA (British Academy Film and Television Arts) Awards, where Joaquin Phoenix made some criticism about systemic and institutional racism throughout the industry, in his acceptance speech. He not only called for everyone in the room to do better, but making a point to say he is of no exception either. Erivo expressed concern on how this lack of diversity and intersectionality even happens within the industry.

To me, the answer is as simple as it starts in the writing room. From pre-production and casting, to even technical production, sets become extremely exclusive. Not only are most producers, writers, and grips / camera operators are men, they also tend to be white as well. This dynamic seeps into content and form, which only contributes to the ideology of "white and male" as the accepted norm, emanating through media, defining our societal expectations and cultural trends. The origins of this issue starts with the conception of a production and pervades all throughout until the very release of the film or work. From the hiring of departments to the cast and editing suite, sets need to be more inclusive and have stronger representation throughout the entirety of the process. The way to possibly amend this issue, is ensuring that the sets and teams industry professional operate within has this aspect of diversity within them. Individuals themselves must advocate and argue for equal representation within their departments, setting these ethical standards to help alleviate this pressing problem in the film industry. Until active acknowledgement and execution of this concept is practiced in full, the Oscars and film industry in general, will remain as devoid of varying representation as it does now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51371360