Final Blog: Our Relationship With Technology Technology's Relationship With Us

Honestly, I don’t know if my relationship with technology is healthy. How can we define healthy? I would guess our eyes and our bodies would say that, no, technology isn’t good for us. But, then It makes me think about how negatively impact i would be if i was behind the rest of society. Would that be healthy for my social life which, what additional challenges would I have to overcome? I think the way we should be thinking about this is relative to the rest of society. I think compared to a majority of people in developed nations (that have access to technology) my relationship with it is on the healthier side. As I’ve said before in other blogs, I'm very careful about what information I give to the public, and what my online persona looks like. I also don’t spend a huge chunk of my day browsing through social media on my phone. My major (and intended career) has a lot to do with technology, so I do spend most of my time using computers and different types of advanced software, but I’m using it in a way to learn and hopefully further my opportunities in life.

I think technology can be a real curse for some people though. Generations that have grown up after me are going to be the most impacted. From the time they were born, they have been almost completely reliant on technology and I don’t think that’s healthy. My fear isn’t that one day they’ll have to learn how to live without it, my fear is that they don’t have a choice anymore. They cannot live without technology because they don’t know any other life. That to me as a scary thought, but we can’t blame them. We invented the world that they were born into, we created what the social norms are, and we continue to allow them to let technology seep into every single aspect of their life. 

After watching the second animated video, I don’t even think I have a full grasp of all the ways technology has impacted us. The social skills that people possess today would be a disgrace even 20 or 30 years ago. If you’re not impacted by the world of technology I bet our society does appear to be made up of mindless, oblivious, and socially awkward individuals. Technology has impacted our social lives, our careers, our education, our sports, our leisure activities, our hobbies, and even our relationships with ourselves. In my opinion it’s naïve to think that we won’t continue to see negative effects caused by technology as generations continue to get older. 

And yet even all these horrible (and honestly scary) impacts technology has had on us I still don’t think it’s completely bad. Technology has given us the opportunity to do things we never even thought were possible. You can have a conversation with somebody across the world in real time, while seeing their face. You can send and receive money on the fly right from your cell phone, and you can even find a community online of like-minded people who have the same interests as you. These are things that people dreamed about and now it’s a reality. I don’t think it’s fair to say that technology is completely good or completely bad. I think each generation, and more importantly each individual, is responsible for creating a positive technological impact. If we use it for the right reasons and we limit our time and attachment to it, I think this can kick off putting a positive spin on technology in the world today.

https://www.healthline.com/health/negative-effects-of-technology

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/five-positive-effects-technology-education-31222.html 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology 

EOTO #2: Propaganda

All throughout high school and middle school, teachers tossed around the term propaganda. I was usually in relation to political leaders creating and spreading posters that depict how great and wonderful they are at leading a country to greatness. We were exposed to these “advertisements” because they were perfect examples of what propaganda looks like. Google defines propaganda as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Throughout history there have been countless examples of this: in North Korea with Kim Jong-Un, in Russia with Vladimire Putin, and in China with Mao Zedong. In each of these cases, these leaders have used propaganda to legitimize themselves, and encourage the people to support them and their ideas.

Historically, propaganda has not always been a negative term, despite the fact that in our current era we view it as a manipulative approach. Just as feelings about propaganda have changed, so have the platforms that it uses. With all the technological advancements, posters, painting, and political cartoons are considered very outdated. Almost everything today is going to be digital and get posted online. Video, TV commercials, or advertisements on podcasts or radio shows are gaining more and more popularity, and are getting the most views and responses from targeted audiences. 

But the digital age is giving “fake news” the ability to spread faster and reach even more people. Biased sources are spreading information and having a major impact on the way people view political candidates. Whether it be slander, or painting somebody as a better person then they are. Propaganda is becoming a huge problem in our modern world.

How can we go about minimizing the negative effects that propaganda brings, without limiting the freedom of speech and press that every american citizen is born with? My simple answer: we can’t. At least in America, will will never be able to prevent media outlets from misleading the public. It would violate our rights and the government would never be able to stay ahead of it. Anytime they squashed one “fake news outlet” another 3 would just pop up. The only way we can really work to minimize this effect is by placing responsibility in the hands of each individual. Every person should fact check the information that they read on the internet, nothing should be taken at face value. Especially when looking for information about political candidates. You should go to their official web pages and try to steer clear of low level blogs or discussion boards. Individuals should be electing officials based on fact, not opinion. 

   Propaganda is a valuable tool that can really provide positive benefits when done correctly (like above). I think that the massive pay increase that can come from news stories has completely cheapened the industry. People are no longer writing and publishing stories to inform the public, they are doing it to make money. This not only leads to misinformation, it leads to the public having a lack of trust in all media outlets.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html 

https://www.canva.com/learn/examples-of-propaganda/ 

VSCO: Communication Through Images

VSCO is an app that was created in 2012 by a company called ‘Visual Supply Company’. Basically, VSCO “is a photography app where you can create an account and upload or take photos, edit and add filters, and share them with other VSCO users or on other social media sites.” Many users post a link to their VSCO in their instagram bios. Further, many people in younger generation view this platform as a place to post for scandalous and controversial photos. 

When the app was first released it was primarily used solely as an editing app (mostly to apply different filters to photos). It was common for people's “profiles” to be set to only allow the account user to see the images, more of a personal photo gallery than a social media account. But over time the apps popularity grew, as did the need for the younger generation to share their information.  

Yet, Unlike instagram and almost every social media platform, VSCO doesn't have likes and until recently, comments either. It is simply just a way to share photos. You would think this would make it safer for younger people, when in fact it has done the opposite. With no way to receive any feedback, people feel more comfortable putting themselves out there (probably because there is no way to receive any negative comments, at least over the internet).

I feel like the original purpose of this app has been lost, and at this point VSCO is only adding the negative connotations that stem from social media. Everybody warns people about being judged negatively based on your online profiles, but maybe the fear of being judged is the driving factor behind people censoring their content at all.  

Apple’s Next Great Idea: CarPlay

Apple’s latest and greats no product is actually not a product at all. It is a service that is installed in the user's care and connects to their phone. Apple says “CarPlay is a smarter and safer way to use your iPhone in the car — allowing you to stay focused on the road.” CarPlay allows users the ability to get directions on the cars dashboard monitor in addition to making calls, sending and receiving messages, listening to music, and with a little hack, sometimes even using the monitor to watch Netflix or play games from the users phone (only while the car is parked of course). 

With the new IOS 13, CarPlay allows users to have a simpler and more accessible view of the road ahead. It also provides users with a single place to keep track of Maps, audio controls, and Siri Suggestions, which provide easy access to things like your Calendar events. CarPlay “can even take control of your HomeKit accessories, like door openers.”

This revolutionary invention from Apple has not only changed the way people travel, but it has created a way for people to literally never need to go offline again. Before, the only time, aside from sleeping, that you couldn’t be connected is when you were driving... until now. Text messages and any other notification you get on your phone, will now come through the car. Apple virtually eliminated the problem of texting and driving because CarPlay is almost entirely voice controlled. Both hands can stay on the wheel, and so can a majority of the users attention. 

I think this is a terrific invention, that can mostly go under rated until tried. I fully support this and I can’t think of a single downside to this service. If nothing else, it will reduce the number of accidents that would have been caused from texting and driving. Everyone on the road is safer because of CarPlay.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205634 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/what-is-apple-carplay/ 

https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-carplay 

Online Self Audit:

For my age, I think I have a relatively small online footprint. Every single one of social media accounts are private. I almost never post anything on my accounts, and when I do, I post a single photo on instagram (maybe 1 every 9ish months). The information on all my accounts is very basic, just stating my name, the high school I went to and my age. I haven't updated or changed any of the information since I created the accounts roughly 5 years ago. 

I have an instagram account, a snapchat, a Tik-tok, and a facebook. I use them all but they are all private and I didn’t link any of them together. The information a visitor could glean about me, even indirectly, by visiting my pages on social media is very limited to the information in my bio. They would also be able to see my face in my profile pictures, but since all my accounts are private, and only my friends can see photos I'm tagged in on FB they wouldn’t get much else. 

Private information I have voluntarily given out are mostly just to my accounts as a secondary form of authentication or to get notification alerting me of any activity on my account (in case I get hacked or somebody logs-in at a new location). This private information is really only my phone number, or extra email account (that I use for this exact purpose) or when I have accounts with companies that make me sign up to get a big discount. 

Back in high school when I made all my accounts, my dad was very reluctant to let me create one without making everything private. Back then, I went along with it because I knew it was the only way I would be able to have them. Looking back on that now, I am so happy he drilled that into my brain. Because of him, every time I make a new account, or a company asks for my information, I think twice about any potential consequence or repercussions I could experience from it. All my friends always ask me why I never post or update my accounts. To them, this is such a strange idea because most of them can't go a couple hours without posting something. But for me, before I post anything on social media, I always think about two things my dad said to me. 1- “am I going to be okay if my parents, children, employer, or employees see this someday? And 2- “would I be ok if this turned up in a newspaper for everyone to see?” If I have any doubt, I don't post it. I even apply those two questions to any texts I send. 

Having regrets about releasing private information is definitely a dangerous road, and can lead to some pretty debilitating mental health problems. I know that personal information is one of my most valued assets. Once I release it to the public, it is out there forever and I can never get it back. I can confidently say that I don’t regret anything about my online footprint. I have always been careful and I continue to be careful.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90315706/kids-parents-social-media-sharing 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

Communication Through a Fitbit:

The company Fitbit was founded in 2007. They make a range of products that help people track their activity levels and get in shape. Their products track things like heart rate, the number of steps walked, steps climbed, and quality of sleep. They keep records from users 24/7 (or for however long they wear it). Many of the newer models also allow wearers to receive notifications on the Fitbit (similar to an Apple Watch). But, this is also changing the way we communicate, not only because users can get notifications 24/7, but because all the activity the product records, can be shared and compared with other users. This can results in compitition between two users or even a way for coaches or others to monitor activity.

The company has released a large variety of products that allow customers to pick the perfect model that suits them. They also range in price and colors. All products give users the ability to compete with other users though. Talk about non-verbal communication... There have even been multiple people report that they caught their partners cheating using the activity log (after seeing a rise in heart-rate at odd hours of the day or night). No information is private anymore. With devices like a Fitbit, users can never fly under the radar because their physical activity is always being monitored and recorded. 

I think this is an amazing app to help people get motivated and start working out. But it also makes me wonder how much privacy we are willing to lose in order to participate in the new and exciting technology. Any personal information that you share with the world, is something that everybody will be able to access. Letting your friend see how many steps you take in a day may seem harmless, but it could lead you down a dangerous path of you releasing much more private information in the future. 

https://www.marketing91.com/top-7-fitbit-competitors/ 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/12/14/fitbit-jane-slater-says-she-caught-ex-boyfriend-cheating-fitness-tracker/2642891001/ 

https://nypost.com/2019/12/05/nfl-host-jane-slater-i-caught-my-ex-cheating-thanks-to-fitbit/ 

https://www.fitbit.com/us/about-us 

Eight Values of Free Expression:

It is common for people holding less popular opinions to be shut out or threatened. Anybody going against the status quo puts themselves at risk, and or, in danger. When something like this happens in a friend group, the repercussions are far less severe than when it happens in a government or on a macro level. In America, citizens are supposed to be protected when they voice an opposing opinion or idea. But it seems like it’s becoming more common for the minority opinions to get threatened or blackmailed in order to stay silent, or even worse prosecuted.

In my opinion, protecting dissent is the most important value of free expression. Without this, ideas and innovation do not grow or adapt to the needs of modern times. If people are not free or encouraged to voice their opinion in order to fix (or better) certain institutions, then those institutions will remain outdated and unhelpful to the majority of Americans that need it. Protecting dissent is thought of as our patriotic duty for this exact reason. If people don’t criticize the government then it does not improve. 

Steven Shiffrin wrote about this idea in a book titled Dissent Injustice and the Meanings of America. In it he says that “Americans should not just tolerate dissent they should encourage it.” He also states that “major institutions including the supreme court and the mass media wrongly limit dissent”. There are also many websites and organizations that are dedicated to fighting back and preserving descent. They also understand how important this right is.

In addition to no longer advancing, if the United States government were to  operate without opposition, it could lead to a society that is not democratic. Without opposition, the government is not being held accountable to the people. They could implement new radical and detrimental legislation without giving minority groups the opportunity to argue the case from their side.

Lastly, I think John Whitehead stated the final reason why I feel protecting dissent is the most important value of free expression. He said, “If I didn’t love this country, it would be easy to remain silent. However, it is because I love my country, because I believe fervently that if we lose freedom here, there will be no place to escape to, I will not remain silent”. I think that he brings up two really good points. First, there is such a thing as constructive criticism. Sometimes people with opposing opinions speak their mind because they love the USA so much that they want it to function in the most successful and efficient way it possibly can. Secondly, we are all Americans, and we all live here. The government creates and enforces the supreme law of land, with no other place to go, saying that citizens can’t contribute or critique the authority figures making the legislation, in a way can turn what is supposed to be a democracy into a prison. The purpose of criticism is to improve things, without this ability, the United States would lose one of its biggest strengths.   

www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/protect-the-right-to-criticize-the-government/ 

https://www.overdrive.com/media/1059104/dissent-injustice-and-the-meanings-of-america 

https://rightsanddissent.org/campaigns/defend-the-right-to-protest/ 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissent

The Power of Emoticons! :)

Emoticon- developed from the phrase ‘emotional icon.’ These symbols are typically used on computers. They help convey the author's emotion and preserve the context behind the written message. The first emoticons are not the elaborate emojis we think about today. Back in the day emoticons only used text based symbols like the colon, semicolon, dash, and parenthesis. The results looked like a sideways smiley face or frowning face, including eyes a nose and a mouth. There is some debate about when the first emoticon was actually used. The first proven emoticon was used on September 19, 1982, by an American computer scientist named Scott E. Fahlman. Scott thought that a smiley face on a message board would mean the post was funny, and a frowning face on a message board meant the post was serious. Despite the massive upgrade emoticons went through to get to where they are today, there were still even critics that disliked them even back in 1982. 

Non-supporters said that emoticons undermined people's ability to effectively communicate using language and writing. It gave them the opportunity to be less creative with their writing. Some say it’s also a way to slack off, while others claim that they can decrease the integrity of the author that sent it. Supporters refute that by claiming that emoticons improve online communication far more than they hindered it. Due to the fact that online communication lacks the personal touch that face to face contact has, emoticons offer a way for the author to clearly demonstrate how they feel about what they’re writing about. Emoticons help get your message out with clarity and in much less words then with a long explanation. 

Today, even only using text based symbols, people are able to create emoticons that are more inventive than you could even imagine. Full pictures are created with extreme detail and care. Personally, I love emoji‘s and without even trying I probably easily send over 100 every single day. To me emojis send out positive vibes and make whatever message I’m sending a little less serious. Every day new emojis get released which allows us to communicate in even more specific and quicker ways.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/emoticon 

https://www.kidscodecs.com/history-of-emoticons/

EOTO #1: Newspaper Box

Information was originally disbursed by word-of-mouth. As our language evolved into writing and literacy, information started to be spread by written stories passed down by generations. As the government started playing a large role in people's lives, keeping people informed was becoming more and more important. Unfortunately the only way to make copies back then was to hand write it multiple times. The woodblock printing method how to speed up this process but everything changed when the printing press was invented in the mid 1400s. This invention revolutionized the way and speed information traveled.  

Skipping ahead almost 5,000 years, the newspaper box was one of these inventions that helped people get access to information. George Thiemeyer invented the newspaper box in 1947 with his company named Servin Vendor, based in California. Newspaper boxes were also referred to as newspaper vending machines or newspaper racks, because the machine had the ability to accept a variety of different valued coins. The customer was able to use one hand, insert coins, and roughly 30 seconds later receive a newspaper. Originally, there were two models available. A 1,250 page capacity machine, and a 2,500 page capacity machine. Both worked identically, except that one could hold more pages. The newspaper box was blowing up and over one million machines were dispersed by 1987. This massive success continued until the digital world entered the scene. This technological advancement  massively reduced the amount of print copies being sold. 

Vending machines were starting to become electronic, and print newspaper prices were getting more expensive.  But since newspaper boxes were completely mechanical, they were still only able to accept coins. Newspaper prices were roughly 3-6 dollars, which meant customers had to insert a lot of quarters, or find dollar coins. This was impractical, and thus this invention started to die out. In addition to mechanical flaws, theft, and other design imperfections, artists began to repurpose these machines, but the impact that newspaper boxes had on our society is still not forgotten today.

Not only did this invention make information available to the general public, it led to a court case that ruled on an issue we still talk about today, the peoples rights in the constitution. In Lakewood, Ohio, 1983, a law was passed to give the city mayor absolute control of where newspaper boxes were located and which company’s paper was inside. Publishes claimed that “distribution of newspapers by means of street racks is ‘an essential method of conveying information to the public.” Because of this, the government having this power, infringes the peoples first Amendment of the Constitution. On June 17, 1988, this law was overturned by the Supreme Court. The 4-3 verdict said this law might lead to populations getting restricted from certain information, or “penaliz[ing] papers that criticize the local government.” Although Newspaper boxes are almost completely retired today, they taught us two important lessons. The first about how important access to information is, and the second, about another way an  infringement to our first amendment right can look.

https://www.thoughtco.com/johannes-gutenberg-and-the-printing-press-1991865

https://www.psprint.com/resources/newspaper-history/ 

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

Incognito communication

Everybody knows that the Internet has changed the way our society communicates. It has given us the ability to talk with people that are literally across the globe, in real time. Almost all digital footprints can be tracked and traced, or so we thought. The Internet has a much darker side that the common person wouldn’t know about and let alone wouldn’t know how to access. “The dark net or deep web is a private network of portals chat rooms and forums.” They are not found when people use search engines on the regular Web because of privacy and security settings. The regular Internet has 3 ways to track people's paths, cookies IP address, and fingerprints. They allow people or companies to track individuals' interests online. This tracking is usually done by companies who want data on their advertisements or how well parts of their site is doing. When individuals use the dark, there is no virtual footprint and the users cannot be tracked. This is a dangerous ground and it’s typically used by people who are buying, selling or engaging in illegal activity. With no virtual footprint nothing is off-limits and sex trafficking, child pornography, and distribution of deadly weapons is more than common. 

This is changing the way we communicate because until the dark web was created individuals could still be held accountable for their actions on the Internet in some way or another. Their history could be traced back to them through an IP address and the government could track it back to the exact computer.  The government could also put manual trackers on people of interest. But now the dark web has allowed people to communicate their deepest darkest thoughts, and they are greeted by other people with similar horrific ideologies. Pedophiles can share tips and tricks of how to groom young kids, women can be trafficked from one side of the world to the other,  and country's trader’s can expose confidential information and risk the security of the nation. All with little to no chance of finding the perpetrator responsible.

Every communication invention has allowed us to deviate further from just talking with people face-to-face. But it has never given people the ability to go completely incognito. The dark web is a dangerous place that  attracts dangerous people and allows them to operate with absolutely no restriction. This type of communication is detrimental and threatens the safety of the entire world. If this is the future of communication I do not want to be involved. 

https://www.maria-johnsen.com/million-dollar-blog/tag/communication-in-deep-web 

The Supreme Court Scandal

In America, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It is the most powerful court in the nation and it consists of nine justices. These nine justices usually handle large and controversial cases. Also the rulings they make usually end up setting the precedent for the outcomes of future similar cases. Basically, these justices hold a tremendous amount of power, are highly respected, and are extremely experienced. But what happens when a Supreme Court Justice is accused of sexual assault?

In 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford when they were in college. This controversial event got me thinking about two things. The first being, Could Brett Kavanaugh Sue Christine Ford for speaking up and making those allegations against him? In court, he said something along the lines of ‘you have destroyed my family name and my reputation’. I have scoured the internet but I couldn’t find any information that told me if Brett Kavanaugh was ever found guilty. But i’m assuming her wasn’t because he has been sworn in as a justice. Due to our legal system “all are innocent until proven guilty,” could Kavanaugh tSue Ford for slander? And in that case if Kavanaugh’s claims were proven to be true, would that result in Ford never being allowed to talk publicly about her accusations against Kavanaugh. And finally, in this case especially, given how high profile it was, would restricting Ford form pursuing her own justice violate her right to freedom of speech? 

Finally I want to know what an event like this means for people with similar cases. For example,, a college girl, have a sexual assault case that makes it to the supreme court, would a guilty verdict really be fair. Whether Kavanaugh actually assaulted Ford or not, past events in his life have made him extremely biased. He will more than likely let that interfere with his rulings and will favor the defendant that is being accused. People bring their cases to the Supreme court after state courts don’t satisfy them. The supreme court is the final rule, and their decision goes much further than the individuals involved. If some justices are tempted to make decisions based on personal situations,  are people being denied the right to a free and equal trial? 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-book-1498153 

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/9/27/17909782/brett-kavanaugh-christine-ford-supreme-court-senate-sexual-assault-testimony  

Freedom of the Press v. False Reporting

Recently, a long time ABC News reporter was suspended for falsely reporting details in relation to Koby Bryant's death. Matt Gutman said that all four of Bryant's children were on board the helicopter at the time of the crash, when in reality, only one was. ABC News released a statement that said “[Gutman’s] initial reporting was not accurate and failed to meet our editorial standards,” they followed this up by suspending Gutman.

While I'm sure Matt had no ill intention, this incident got me thinking. How far does the first amendment go to protect individual's right to freedom of the press? If a reporter included false information that wasn’t slander or purposeful, can they still be blamed? And more importantly can they, or should they be punished? Basically I want to know what, if any, circumstances grant you safety under the first amendment. I understand that if stories are being released with the sole purpose of destroying somebody’s reputation or with bad intentions, that those individuals would not be protected under the First Amendment. But what about this case, I truly believe that Matt Gutman was not trying to cause panic or dismay in the public. I just think that he was too eager to share his lead and didn’t do enough fact checking. With this being said,  would the first amendment protect him, or could Matt Gutman sue ABC News for suspending him while he was exercising his right to freedom of the press. 

How much fact checking is required? As a reporter is it your moral obligation to fact check your information before releasing it, or is it the obligation of the people to trust the sources and do fact checking of their own? Today we live in an age we are fake news surrounds us, old fashion journalism is rare, and most of the stories that are released or done with the sole purpose of making monkey. Stories are not realisease to help better educate the public. Should the first amendment add new guidelines that help limit fake news, or should reporters continue to be allowed to publish stories with little to no fact checking?

In my opinion I think it’s both the job of reporters and the public. Reporters shouldn’t be intentionally releasing stories knowing that they aren’t true, but at the same time consumers shouldn’t be reading or watching stories and immediately taking them at face value. People are malicious and selling out is becoming more and more common. Kobe Bryant’s death was a horrible tragedy, but despite the fact that one of the greatest basketball legends ever, has passed away, there are still countless tabloids that are using his death to drive profits up. 

Everybody has secrets or part of their lives that they want to keep private. Some secrets are legal or are controversial, but some secrets are things that people should have a right to keep private. Currently I feel as though there is no true moral standard that Journalists are being held to. Outing somebody’s sexual orientation or harmless hobby should be off-limits. While things like illegal activity or offensive language are things that new story should be focusing on. But all of this leads to the bigger question who if anybody should be the people telling what can or can not be reported on? It can’t be the government because that would infringe on our rights, it can’t be one news organization because there isn’t a universal one. There really is no true industry standard, and that’s right where Matt Gutman’s situation goes into the gray area. He’s been with ABC since 2008 and he’s a highly respected reporter, so should one unintentional oversight destroy his career and leave him suspended, or would public backlash and becoming under fire himself within the public eye be enough of a lesson to ensure this doesn't happen again?

https://deadline.com/2020/01/abc-news-suspends-correspondent-matt-gutman-over-inaccurate-report-kobe-bryant-helicopter-crash-1202845594/

Apple Watchs: The Future of Communication

You never stop hearing it, “young people these days are glued to their phones." It feels like these days older generations are blaming all of young people's problems on modern technology and how connected we are to our devices. With big tech companies releasing new and improved technology by what seems like the second, it’s getting harder and harder to resist some of the incredible new technology that is out there. So, it should come as no surprise that Apple has expanded their horizons and entered the watch business. Releasing the first generation Apple watch in April of 2015, the company has completely revolutionized what communication is, and how we can go about it. Having this smart watch on your wrist gives users the ability to be constantly connected, literally 24 hours a day. 

Since watches don’t have the unprofessional stigma attached to them like phones do, there is almost never a situation that watched wouldn’t be allowed in. But, unlike a conventional watch, the Apple watch has a bluetooth or cellular data connection, which enables users to get every notification that they would usually get from their phone, right to their wrist. This includes, texts, snapchats, social media alerts, emails, phone calls, news stories, etc. And, not only does the watch show you notifications, but it even offers the ability to respond to texts and email, and pick up phone calls! Additionally, the smart watch can act as a fitness tracker, sleep monitor, and walkie talkie. Watch users are able to add other users and become ‘friends’, which enables both parties to share their activity levels, sleep information, and even get immediate access to the other person using the walkie-talkie feature. Individuals with apple watches are not only connected 24/7, they are able to completely run their lives using only a finger and a 340x272 pixel screen.

I think that the Apple watch is an amazing invention, that has shown our society a what the future of communication can look like. It has changed the way people interact on a daily basis. But, with so much power, comes responsibility, and I am not 100% confident that our society as can be trusted with this incredible innovation. Adolescence, and even more recently middle age adults are having a harder and harder time disconnecting from the digital world. I can only imagine how children will behave in adulthood, if they had an Apple watch on since they were in fourth grade. Smart watches, have changed the game and will only continue to open doors for new technological advancements, but I think we have to be careful whose wrist we allow it on and at what age.     

https://www.inverse.com/article/55410-apple-watch-series-5-4-ways-the-hit-series-4-could-improve 

https://www.fabulous-femme.com/apple-watch-fashion-or-not/