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/