Final Blog Prompt

 

My Relationship with Technology

I'm sorry, but I have to do it. I have to vent about the negative side of technology from a teenagers perspective. But, I'm pinning most of the blame on Generation X, the generation who irresponsibly uses technology daily and passes these traits on to their children. My dissociation with posting on social media started from a young age in which my mother would zoom in on any picture someone posted and highlight things she sought out as insecurities. Due to this, I limit photos that are taken of me and for my dad's annual birthday post, I send him pictures that I have deemed okay to post. After that comes the dependency on technology in which I would attempt to have a conversation with my mom, only to be ignored as she swiped through her phone. I believe that teenagers unhealthy relationship with technology, truly starts at home. 

Parents also resort to cyberbullying tactics as well in order to teach their child a lesson. For example, forcing children to receive ill haircuts, telling the world embarrassing stories, and using the child's own account to embarrass them. If children see their own parents bully, why would a child think it's not okay? A recent example of this in the media, is Aubrey Wyatt's story. The 13 year-old from Mississippi, who alived herself as a result of cyberbullying. The parents of the bullies decided to sue the mom of Aubrey Wyatt for spreading awareness, and take away her social media platform. Instances, such as this one set a precedent for children to believe that behavior such as this, is okay and that they can get away with it. 

Studies show that the average American now receives a smartphone at the age of 11, and the age is expected to drop over the next couple of years. This means that the average 5th grader receives access to the internet without critical-thinking skills or the knowledge of the start of their digital tattoo. Or should I say the delayed start? By the age of 11, children most likely have already been posted online by their parents. For example, Sonia Bokhari, was deeply hurt by the digital tattoo that was started of her before she even got a say. 

On top of this, the divide between parenting at home and expectations at school continues to grow. Parents refusal to work with teachers on the topic of technology results in ill impulse control and inappropriate usage. For example, children refusing to use technology to do schoolwork and instead using it to play games during class. Or on the other hand, the lack of work ethic that is instilled at home that results in students using ChatGPT to do schoolwork instead. I seriously think my dad would kill me if I failed a course because I decided to use AI to do my work instead of doing it myself. 

As far as my personal relationship with technology, I use it in a responsible and reasonable manner. I am able to disengage with my devices in order to have a technology-free lunch/dinner with my friends or family. I also exercise caution in what I post on my socials and they're all set to private with a limited amount of personal information. I balance my use of technology between educational platforms as well as just for fun. As an international relations major, it's vitally important for me to be aware of what is happening in the United States as well as in other countries. But as a 18-year old, I also love using technology to connect with friends and stay up to date on new trends. 

Am I entirely blaming parents for children's ill decisions? Absolutely not. After a certain point, responsibility falls on the child to take responsibility for their actions. For example, the recent raise the age law in which 16-year olds can be tried as adults for certain crimes. 15 and a 1/2 year olds are allowed to complete drivers education and register to vote. If they're responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle, they should be responsible enough to manage their relationship with technology. But, this all starts at home. So, before shoving your 2-year old in front of the TV for educational time or publicly humiliating your child, maybe take the time to think about the behavior you're modeling for them.  

AntiWar

 

Are Strong AntiWar Voices Silenced?

The Progressive Era, 1914-1925, laid the groundwork for many of the ideas that we value today. Most notably in the case of antiwar voices; the emergence of Holmes Famous Dissent, in which the clear and present danger test is used in Scheck v US (1919). This landmark supreme court case tested First Amendment Speech and gave grounds for the United States to introduce the term incitement. Most notably from this, the development of the marketplace of ideas is produced. 

So how does this relate to the presence of antiwar voices? To explore the censorship of antiwar voices we would have to take a look at another landmark supreme court case, Near v Minnesota. This court case tested prior restraints, and established that there are only three exceptions where prior restraints are constitutional. These restraints are as follows, incitement, threat to national security in wartime, and obscenity. 

With this being said, I don't believe that the government is censoring strong antiwar voices as it is unconstitutional. I honestly believe that the issue is the platform that the authors are using. For example, The American Conservative, according to the All Sides Media Bias Chart, leans far to the right. Most of the news sources that are on the far right side of the chart, I tend to shy away from. 

I believe when choosing media sources to trust, most individuals will go for mainstream sources that fall in the middle three columns. In order to remain in the neutral hemisphere of news sources, authors tend to publish more generic/socially acceptable articles. 

On the other hand, sites such as antiwar.com, are not mainstream and honestly difficult to trust. If I were doing a school project or looking for a reputable news source, I would not click on a site that is formatted in the way that the above listed site is. The site comes across as terroristic and outdated. Although, Twitter has now officially been renamed "X," the site still has it listed as "Twitter". The dates are also out of wack on the site. When attempting to look at the regional news tab for the United States, you're greeted with a tab that looks like the one to the right. The top three news articles are for years that have not even occurred, and are not correct when you click on the actual site. One of the articles gave me a 404 error and the other Google would not even let me access, because it sensed that my connection was not private.

Aside from these sources tending to be far out there, I believe that Americans like to live their lives in an uneducated bubble. It is much easier to believe that our government is doing everything to protect us, as opposed to believing that the government would knowingly enter the US into an unnecessary war. As opposed to the government censoring strong antiwar voices, I believe that we as American citizens do it for the government. We choose to paint narratives that we are helping other countries by sending money, weapons, and our military to show that we support countries in need of our help. We choose to believe that we are saving innocent people from mass genocide by showing our support and engaging in war.