Summary of Blogs

Welcome to my blog! This past semester I've kept a blog for my Media Law & Literacy class. Today, I published my final post, so here is a table of contents of all my work from this semester, including hyperlinks to the posts. Some of my first posts do not appear at the end of my feed of blogs for some reason, so the links will lead you to them. These will be listed in chronological order of when they were published.

"How a Gen Z'er Gets Her News" - A summary of the main sources I used at that point in time to get my news, as well as why I chose those sources.

"A Brief Look at the History and Set-Up of the U.S. Supreme Court" - After watching a mini-documentary about it, I reflect on the U.S. Supreme Court and summarize what I learned.

"The Truth About the First Amendment" - In this post, I address some common misconceptions people have about the First Amendment, while also talking about how the First Amendment applies to the Capitol riots back in January.

"The Media's Censorship of Media" - In this post, I discuss my thoughts on why websites such as ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative are not mainstream.

"'Individual Self-Fulfillment' & 'Promote Innovation': My Key Theories of the Key Theories" - Based on the eight values of free expression, I explain why "Individual Self-Fulfillment" and "Promote Innovation" are the two most important values to me.

"The History of YouTube" - In my first EOTO post, I discuss the history, evolution, and impact of YouTube.

"'Frontline: The Facebook Dilemma' Reaction" - After watching part one of "Frontline; The Facebook Dilemma," I write about my thoughts towards what I learned in the documentary. 

"Although Audio Technology Have Evolved, the Bonding Aspects of Music Remain"- In this post, I reflect on what I learned while listening to my classmates' first EOTO presentations, specifically those who covered music related technologies.

"TikTok Through the Lens of the Diffusion Theory" - Using Roger's Diffusion of Innovation Theory, I analyze TikTok's popularity trends since its release.

"My Public Opinion on Privacy" - After our class discussion on privacy, I reflect on my biggest takeaways and what was the most unsettling to me.

"Net Neutrality" - In my second EOTO post, I explain what net neutrality is, how it works, and who it affects.

"EOTO #2 Reflection: False Flags" - After watching my classmates' second EOTO presentations, I reflected on the topic that stood out most to me: False Flags.

"'Person of Interest' and the Current Privacy Debate'" - For my last post before my final, I share how a show I watched, "Person of Interest," relates to (and somewhat foreshadowed) the current privacy debate.

"My Relationship with Technology and Social Media" - To wrap up my blog, I wrote about my relationship with technology and social media, my online presence, and how I think people can improve their relationship with the technology they use.

My Relationship with Technology and Social Media

 

HPU Social Media & Digital Communication title (via highpoint.edu)

    Whenever I'm asked about my relationship with technology and social media, I feel very conflicted. On one hand, I understand the many issues that have arisen because of social media and that there are drawbacks to it. On the other, I personally have had very good experiences with social media and I really enjoy using it. I'm even a Social Media and Digital Communication major now and I think it is very likely that I could work in or with social media in some capacity in my future career. 

    I enjoy using social media for entertainment, to network, and to communicate. Although I do not post frequently, I usually go on most of my accounts at least once day. When I do post, I am very conscientious of it, not only from a privacy standpoint, but also from just a general content perspective. Having two older sisters, I was always hyperaware of what I posted on Instagram or tweeted because I knew there was a good chance one of my sisters would comment back or repost in a way that is poking fun at me. If they did that, it would be coming from a place of love and I more than likely wouldn't mad; I would just be embarrassed. Because of that, I want every caption and every tweet to be letter perfect so there is nothing my sisters can comment about. 

    Originally all of this overthinking was contained mainly to my Instagram captions, but over time, it grew to me overthinking every post, repost, Snapchat story, retweet, etc. I can't really say if the impact of this has been more negative or positive, because it has affected me in both ways. On the negative end of the spectrum, it has more than likely increased my self-consciousness and I am more concerned with others' opinions and thoughts on me than I would be otherwise. At times, I do wish I could post what I want without being concerned what people will think, but there are benefits to being this conscientious. 

    From a positive standpoint, it has benefitted me greatly because it has and should continue to prevent me from posting any sort of content that would negatively impact future job prospects. I can't say I have been in a situation where I was concerned something I had posted or was thinking about posting was going to be an issue. However, because of my concern over what people think of my posts, it causes me to think about how people would react to it, thus allowing me to make sure it won't hurt me professionally.

Google search of my name

    Because of that consciousness of what I post, I have a good online presence. If you google my name, the first result is my Linkedin, one is a link to my Hudl profile from my senior year of volleyball, and the rest are links to articles I've written for my high school paper and for the Campus Chronicle here at High Point.  

    Despite all of that, I am not perfect when it comes to social media and technology. The most negative effect it has had on me is how it's affected my productivity. I will sit for hours switching between Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and if I'm really desperate, Facebook, scrolling mindlessly when I could be doing something that I actually need to be doing, like my homework. I do think downtime is important and it is healthy to take time and do something mindless, such as watch TV or go on social media. Personally though, I would prefer to spend my downtime watching a movie or hanging out with my friends instead of using social media. However, since I typically spend my homework time on social media, I then have to spend my downtime doing homework. It's a vicious cycle that I'm still trying to escape, but I do know that I am not the only one that experiences this. One study found that 49% of undergraduate students that were surveyed said "the use of technology for reasons not related to class, or "off-task" use, was distracting to them."

    There is an art to the give and take relationship between ourselves and technology usage. On one hand, our lives are on our computers. Most schoolwork, lots of careers, and a world of information is all stored online. Even prior to the pandemic, secondary and post-secondary education students did a lot of their work online; whether that be through an online textbook, taking notes, or even completing exams. When it comes to jobs, a lot of work is done on a computer, both in an office and from home. At the end of the day, when people are finished with school and work, they still don't get a break from technology. They have to map their way home to avoid the traffic jam, they have to order takeout food for dinner on the restaurant's website, and they want to go through Facebook and Instagram to see what everyone has posted that day. Notice how I used "want" in the last clause instead of "have," like I did in the first two. That change is important because that is where the give and take comes into play. 

    We have to accept in this day and age, technology is an inevitable part of our lives. The vast majority of us have to use it to some extent in order to be fully active in normal society. Many people have accepted that technology is a necessity in some aspect of their lives, but when doing so, they have also included the notion that as logging into their work computer is an important part of their daily routine, going through all social media feeds is of the same importance. This is the root of people's unhealthy relationships with technology and social media. Every aspect of their day seems to require technology, when in reality, using social media is a choice. People should only go on to Facebook, Instagram, etc, when they want to. If they want to go on it every day, then they should go on it every day. But if they don't have the actual desire to go on, they should do something else with their spare time. People should try to limit the number of times they open their social media out of habit and boredom. If people only go on their accounts when they want to be entertained by what is on their feed, then social media and technology will become more of an outlet or source of relaxation, similar to watching TV or a movie, instead of a chore they must complete each day. In my own life, I have found that when I go through phases where I only go on social media when I actually want, I am more happy and actually find that time to be relaxing. 

    In conclusion, although there is always room for improvement, I currently have a fairly healthy relationship with technology and social media. I appreciate all that it's good for, while still being aware of its drawbacks. In general, I believe that people can improve their relationship with social media if they stop treating it as a part of their routine in their day. Instead, people should think about social media and recreational technology usage in the same way they think about watching TV or reading book. It does not have to be a scheduled part of every day of people's lives; it should be an outlet used to decompress and as a form of entertainment in free time. Technology and social media are very important and necessary tools in today's world. Everything is just continuing to evolve, so we might as well learn how to best facilitate a healthy relationship with it in order to ease the stress and burden that can come with technology.

 

"Person of Interest" and the Current Privacy Debate

Person of Interest poster via IMDb

    Throughout this course, we have talked a lot about privacy, especially in the new age of technology with social media and the internet. It became apparent that taking extra precautions for privacy is not something many people consider doing, whether it be because they don't know this is even something they can do or because they just don't think it's necessary for them specifically. Although I am someone who is willingly active on social media, I feel as though I am very aware of the amount of information that has been collected about me. The main reason I think this is the case is because during the fall of 2019 and the winter of 2020, I watched the CBS show Person of Interest with my father. Because the show first aired between 2011 and 2016, my dad had already seen it and thought I would enjoy it, so we watched it together on Netflix.

    Person of Interest is an action crime drama set in modern day New York City. Harold Finch (Michael Emerson), a billionaire tech genius enlists John Reese (Jim Caviezel), a former soldier for the U.S. Army Special Forces and operative for the CIA, to help prevent people's deaths. Years prior, Finch had created a machine for the U.S. government that would collect and sort data from every camera, phone, computer, website, microphone, etc in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Although the government only uses it for terrorist attacks, the machine also displays information about other premeditated murders; the government just deems these unimportant and ignores them. Unbeknownst to the government, Finch still has access to this machine and is being fed the social security numbers of soon to be victims of attacks. He will then pass the information off to Reese and the two will work together, with Reese in the field and Finch behind the computer, as they try to prevent these deaths. This is the general set up of each episode, which is coupled with an overarching plot or two for each season, most of which revolved around people in rebel group trying to prevent the government from using people's personal devices to spy on them and storing their information. 

    The show had high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes (92%), IMDb (8.4/10), and Rating Graph (9/10). In its first season, Person of Interest  was the fifth most viewed CBS show of the 2011-2012 season, with 13.31 million viewers. The show was ultimately cancelled partially due to a decline in viewers following the third season, but also become although it was a CBS show, it was owned by Warner Brothers, who then received a great deal of the ad revenue the show brought in. Ultimately, it was not profitable enough for CBS to continue the series as long as Warner Bros. owned it. 

    With the show being as successful as it was, I was initially surprised more people were not as concerned about their privacy because I felt as though it would have been a real eye opener to anyone who watched it. As I thought about it more though, I came to the theory that the show, in many ways, foreshadowed what was to come in the way of privacy and technology, so at the time of its initial airing, people did not think of it as a wake up call because it was almost early in the timeline of smart phones and similar technology.

Amazon Echo via Amazon

    For reference, Person of Interest first premiered on September 22nd, 2011.  One month later, the iPhone 4s was released, first introducing the world to Siri, the voice assistant to which people spoke their commands and questions and it would understand the words and relay the answers or complete the action. The first iPhone to use finger print ID was not released until 2013 with the iPhone 5s, and facial recognition software was not added to the iPhones until the iPhone X, which was released at the end of 2017, almost a year and a half after the finale of Person of Interest aired. Another bit of technology that has been the center of many privacy conversations are the smart speakers, such as Google Homes and Amazon Echos, which was one of the first devices of this nature. The Amazon Echo was released in 2015, and it, as well as other smart speakers, can connect to the internet so then users can verbally ask the device a question or give it a command, and then the device will give you a response out loud. Because many devices are activated by the call of their name, people have concluded that the speakers must always be listening, and some take it farther and argue that the government and/or the company that makes the respective speaker is actually recording everything they say, even if it is not directed to the speaker. 

    When the show first began, a lot of the current technological advancements that people have privacy concerns over were either brand new, or non-existent. Those who watched Person of Interest, may not have thought that the events in the series were realistic or likely, partially because of the available technology at the time. Flash forward just about five years after the show ended, and now data security and privacy with our technology and social media is an extremely hot topic that many people are finally starting to be concerned about. 

    I'm curious as to how Person of Interest would hold up today had it began airing in 2020 and 2021. I feel like it would actually be the needed wake up call to those to watch it; however, it would not surprise me if the show had lower ratings if it were made today. I don't know how much people would want to watch a show that features unsettling examples of how their privacy may not be as personal as they once imagined. Many people prefer to live by the motto "ignorance is bliss," and they may choose to ignore the vast number of ways the government or other companies could be recording and storing your information.

    In sum, although it is not a current show, Person of Interest, is about as current as you can get with the subject matter. If you have a Netflix subscription, I recommend trying it out because not only is it a timely topic, but it is also just a well made show with solid plot lines and acting. 

EOTO #2 Reflection: False Flags

     As I listened to the other groups present their second EOTO projects, the one that I found myself thinking about after the fact was false flags. 

    They explained that false flags are acts that have been committed by one party in a way to place blame on another party in order to push some sort of agenda. 

Operation Northwoods
Memorandum via GWU 

    Revealed almost 40 years after the fact, in the 1960's, the United States military was planning to create a false flag. Under the codename Operation Northwoods, the U.S. military had planned to commit violent acts and orchestrate them to create the public illusion that they were actually carried out by Cuban forces. The hope was that this would drum up enough support for the U.S. to invade Cuba in order to remove their new communist leader, Fidel Castro, from power. Reports show that some of the proposed attacks included hijacking planes, attacking boats of Cuban refugees, and even committing terroristic acts on American soil. After the plan had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on paper, they were presented to Robert McNamara, the defense secretary under the Kennedy administration. The plans were then rejected and with that, Operation Northwoods was dead. 

    Although I did not know of this example until I did some individual research into false flags, I was aware of the many false flag conspiracies people have regarding the JFK assassination, the Sandy Hook and Majorie Stoneman Douglas school shootings, and even the 9/11 terrorist attack.

    Whenever I would hear people talking about those conspiracies, it truly baffled me how people could think that the U.S. government would ever plan and carry out a plan as devastating as 9/11 in order to justify going to war in the Middle East. With almost 3,000 people dying that day from the attack, I could not fathom that our own government would do such a thing. 

    After learning about Operation Northwoods, although I've realized the government is capable of a lot more than I originally thought, I still do not think any rational argument can be made in favor of the idea that the U.S. government planned and committed the attack on September 11th as a false flag. 

    Maybe I'm being ignorant in doing so, but I truly think it would be terrible to live in a country where you believe your government is willing and able to sacrifice almost 3,000 lives in order to justify going to war, which in turn, would take even more lives. From a strictly moral standpoint, I can't imagine believing that 9/11 is an inside job. If that's then coupled that with all of the proof that has debunked these theories, I think this false flag conspiracy, like most others, has no legitimacy to it whatsoever, and it is astonishing to me that even almost 20 years later, people still believe in it.

Net Neutrality

Logos from the seven main telecommunication providers

    When determining which policy I would research and teach the class about, I was slightly hesitant to choose net neutrality because I remember how confusing I thought it was back when there was a lot of debate about it. In the end, I decided to take it on because I really wanted to have a better understanding on this topic, and now, I do. 

What is Net Neutrality?

    Net neutrality is the policy that prohibits telecommunication companies from speeding up, slowing down, or blocking sites or content. 

    The term was first coined in 2003 when Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, published a paper about online discrimination. When it was published, some telecommunication services were impacting different services. For example, Comcast and several other providers had blocked their customers from using virtual private networks, more widely known as VPN's.

    The first major attempt the U.S. government made to prevent telecommunication services from discriminating against websites was in 2005. Under the Bush administration, the Federal Communication Commission, or FCC created a policy that forced these companies to allow customers to connect any device of their choosing to their internet, barred them from blocking legal content, and stated that Comcast would eventually have to stop slowing down the usage of BitTorrent. BitTorrent is a program that while it had legitimate uses, it was also commonly used for piracy. This policy was overturned by a federal court following a lawsuit from Comcast. The court stated that the FCC did not have any sort of case that it had the authority to enforce their policy.

    In 2010, under the Obama administration, the FCC tried to implement net neutrality once again, with a more specific policy. This time, it was Verizon who sued and won, with the court stating that the FCC was overstepping its authority by trying to impose these regulations on companies that were not classified as Title II common carriers under the Communication Act.

    The Communication Act was passed in 1934. It created the Federal Communication Commission, who is responsible for regulating radio, television, wire, and satellite communications. This extended the 1927 Radio Act by adding the regulation of common carriers. Common carriers are services that are seen as vital to an economy and/or the society as a whole, so laws can be passed in order to ensure people have equal access to it. 

    In 2015, after much public demand for net neutrality, the FCC changed internet providers classification to Title II common carrier status. Once this happened, the FCC reinstated their previous policy, and although they were sued once again, this time the court sided with the commission. 

    In 2017, all of the hard work was dismantled when the FCC, now under the Trump Administration, got rid of the common carrier status for the providers, as well as any policies that prevented said providers from blocking or slowing down content. The only rule they put in place was that these companies had to disclose any and all information about their "network-management practices." 

    Despite this set back for net neutrality advocates, just last month, progress was made when a federal court in California announced that beginning Tuesday, March 2nd, the state would be enforcing their policy which bars telecommunication services from adjusting the speed or accessibility of content online. Many think that CA's laws will become a staple for other states to follow in creating anti-internet discrimination laws. 

How does it work? 

    With net neutrality, telecommunication companies are not allowed to speed up or slow down any websites or content, and they are also not allowed to charge companies different amounts of money in order to have their site work at a normal pace. For example, YouTube, a media mega giant, and a small business owner's website would have to pay the same amount of money to the telecommunication companies for their content to be accessible to users.

    On the other hand, without net neutrality, telecommunication companies can create a tiered payment program where websites that take up a higher bandwidth have to pay more in order to have their content accesible at the normal speed. For instance, YouTube takes up much more bandwidth than a small business owner's website, so it costs the telecommunication companies more money to keep YouTube's speed equivalent to the other website's speed. In order to combat that, service providers would charge these bigger sites like YouTube, Twitter, etc more money to account for the extra bandwidth used. This extra charge could then potentially fall on the shoulders of the customers as these companies could charge all customers for the use of their sites. 

Who does this really affect?

    At the end of the day, whichever side wins the net neutrality argument, similar people are affected. 

  

Households with Broadband service
subscriptions via U.S. Census Bureau

 With net neutrality, although everyone has equal and free access to content online, the telecommunication services are not making as much of a profit. Without that profit, they are unable to put more money towards other departments and areas-- for instance, extending service to more rural and impoverished areas. This negatively impacts those living in these areas, who commonly have a lower income. 

    Without net neutrality, users may have to begin to pay a premium to use different sites, and that will be the hardest on low income households. Yes, everyone is having to pay, but for those of a higher socio-economic status, that extra expense may not put much of a dent in the pocketbook, whereas for those who live paycheck to paycheck, they may have to sacrifice another necessity in order to use websites to which they need access. 

    In conclusion, the debate over net neutrality is ongoing. Although it may be hard to uphold national legislation enforcing it, many states may begin to model after California's latest policy in order to create their rules and regulations for telecommunication companies. 

My Public Opinion on Privacy

Graph showing that over half of Americans
believe that data collection is inevitable
(Via Pew Research Center) 

    

    After our class discussion about privacy, the thing I've found myself thinking about for the past few days was the fact that Facebook and other tech companies have contracts with the U.S. Government and their agencies. I'm most surprised by the fact that no one is talking about this. Granted, some people may be talking about it and I'm just not around them; however, I feel like I would have heard something more about it by now. These contracts are very concerning because as long as they exist, I feel like there will be very little progress made to improve privacy between big tech companies and their customers and users. If people call on Congress to make laws protecting their data and privacy from companies like Facebook and Google, the people in office could be less inclined to listen because of these contracts. 

    Not only are they partnered with the likes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but they also donate money to legislators. The Verge reported that between 2006 and 2018, Facebook donated over $7 million to different campaigns. Many of the senators and representatives that questioned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at his House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees hearings in 2018 received funds from his company in past years. The article does note that even though some of the lawmakers did receive funding, many did not hold back in their questioning of him. 

    With that being said, I do find it odd that there are still privacy issues with these companies when it seems like a fairly one sided argument. Why wouldn't legislators want to protect their constituents from deep pocket inspections, malware, or voice recognition software? One potential reason is because the government is benefitting from these companies data mining techniques, so they do not want to limit that or decrease any campaign funding they may be expecting. 

    It's also extremely fascinating to me how this debate over privacy is always timely, yet the specifics will be different. For example, when I was researching for this blog post, I found an article from this past Thursday regarding a privacy battle between Apple and Facebook. In short, Apple plans to make it much harder for companies, such as Facebook, to curate ads specific to people based off the data they have collected about their interests and their other activity online. Facebook claims that these personalized ads are beneficial to both users and small businesses by giving people a chance to find products and services they might enjoy and that they would not have found otherwise. 

    In conclusion, the arrangement between the U.S. Government and these tech companies speaks volumes about the way the government views our privacy. As long these contracts remain in effect, I will personally be skeptical of any actions taken by the government when it comes to improving privacy laws with companies like Facebook and Google.

TikTok Through the Lens of the Diffusion Theory

TikTok logo (Via Pittsburgh Parent)

   TikTok is a very interesting example of an innovation that can be examined through the lens of the diffusion theory because of how recent it is, as well as because of the controversies surrounding it.

    Most users believe that TikTok began as Musical.ly, an app where users could create and post short lip-synching and comedy videos, however, many are not aware that TikTok began as it's own entity in 2017. ByteDance, a Chinese based tech company had an app similar to Musical.ly, called Douyin, that was extremely popular in China and Thailand. The company wanted to expand to the global market and did so with TikTok in 2017. In that same year, ByteDance saw the success of Musical.ly and bought the app out for up to $1 billion. By the latter half of 2018, they had combined it with the existing TikTok in order to maintain Musical.ly's users as well as continue to grow TikTok's reach. It is now a global app, available everywhere except China, where they still use Douyin, which is almost identical to its worldwide counterpart, just with some additional technical advancements.

    TikTok differs from Musical.ly in that the latter's market was heavily dominated by young people, with very little adult usage, and the content was mainly limited to lip-synching and comedy content. On the other hand, TikTok features users of all ages who have gained followings through a variety of types of videos, including but not limited to, dancing, singing, fitness/health, comedy, story-times, and even theories and news about popular shows, movies, and artists. Many companies have created accounts and used the app as a way to market their products, especially to Gen Z. In September 2019, the NFL announced a multi-year deal with TikTok in order to combat the decrease in youth interest in the professional football league. 

TikTok download statistics by quarter (via Business of Apps)

Looking at TikTok through the Diffusion Theory, the pioneers of the app were those who were active
on Douyin in China and Thailand, TikTok when it first launched globally, and Musical.ly when it was still its own company. Once ByteDance acquired Musical.ly and the app took off, between then and the end of 2018, when TikTok hit its first peak at 205.7 million downloads, is when the early adopters and early majority stages of the theory took place. The app continued to grow in 2019, however, at a much slower rate, thus showing the app had settled into the late adopters stage. Instead of then settling into the final laggards phase, in the first quarter of 2020, the number of downloads jumped to the highest it had ever been, with 315 million downloads. By quarter four though, the numbers had dropped down to 177 million downloads. The jump at the beginning of 2020 differs from Roger's Diffusion of Innovation theory, however, it is most likely the result of the COVID-19 pandemic that rocked the world at the beginning of the year. As people were forced to socially distance in their homes, they most likely turned to TikTok as a form of entertainment and a distraction. 

    The pioneers most likely used Musical.ly and the other apps because it was the closest thing people could get to Vine, an extremely popular app where people could post six second videos, which was discontinued in October 2016. The early adopters could've seen how TikTok was more diverse than Musical.ly in its content, which did not appeal to them on its own, so they decided to check out this new app. From that point on, as the early adopters began sharing TikToks on other forms of social media, which inspired the early majority to then partake in the app as well, as they became more aware of it. 

    I think there are two big reasons as to why people were late adopters. First, many people probably did not realize there was content on the app that would interest them. I think this strongly applies to adults who may have thought this was just an app for kids and teens, however, once they learned there are lots of "sides" of TikTok that can be applicable to them, such as cooking, fitness, and travel tips, more and more signed up. The other reason people may have been in the late majority could be due to their awareness of how addicting and time consuming the app can be. TikTok is designed to be addicting. The app has two feeds users can scroll through: "For You Page" (FYP) and "Following". While the latter consists of only videos created by users that you follow; it's the "FYP" that really sucks people in. This page is set up to be an infinite scroll, so users will never reach an end or a definite stopping point to their activity. The videos that appear on one's "FYP" are determined based primarily on an algorithm that takes past TikToks that you've interacted with, whether it be you liked, shared, commented on, or saved it, and used that information to push more videos that fit your liking and interests. This allows the content to continue to be interesting, therefore, keeping users' attention on the app for longer. I personally have many friends who still have not downloaded TikTok, even though they want to, because they are worried they will spend too much time on it and not on things that actually need their attention, like school. However, some finally have given into their urges and have joined the masses in the late majority who are using the app. 

    The logic of the time commitment that commonly comes with the app also applies to those who will never get it; they do not want to waste their time using it. I think another main reason people don't get the app is because of privacy concerns. As mentioned earlier, TikTok collects data about their users to create their "FYP", and because it's a Chinese owned company, there are many concerns about China collecting and storing people's information. In fact, in August of 2020, former President Trump announced that he would be banning all transactions with ByteDance in order to "address the national emergency with respect to the information and communication technology supply chain." As of publishing, this has not yet come to fruition. 

    Those who choose not download TikTok benefit by knowing that if ByteDance is storing data, theirs is not being collected on this app. From a privacy standpoint, there really are not positives to TikToks that outweigh those negatives. Although it is seen as a form of social media, it is not one that people should consider getting solely for a self-marketing standpoint for potential employers, like they would Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. In some past classes, I have learned that is is beneficial to be active on social media, at least to an extent, because it shows that you are comfortable with technology, however, at this point in time, unless someone is pursuing a career within a social media field or department, TikTok is not necessary to improve one's resume. The main benefit of TikTok is that people can learn helpful information, and it has even become a way to spread news. However, people should still follow-up the information they learn with additional research because anyone can make any sort of statement on that app and claim that it is completely factual, even when that is not the case. 

    In conclusion, while TikTok did follow Roger's Diffusion of Innovation Theory to an extent, it did experience an additional jump in popularity, most likely due to the pandemic. The people who have not downloaded TikTok are benefitting by keeping their data out of the hands of a big tech company. When deciding if someone wants to partake in a new communication technology, in this age, the main question they have to answer is if the want or need for the product outweighs the potential negative effects that would come with a company collecting data about them. In some situations, it is necessary for people to sacrifice part of their privacy in order to use the technology they need, however, in the case of TikTok, for the most part, there are no downsides to keeping the app off your phone.

Although Audio Technologies Have Evolved, the Bonding Aspects of Music Remain

     As I was listening to the people in my class present about their technologies, I noticed a common thread between a few similar ones, specifically, those related to music. The first two inventions we heard about were the radio and the LP record player, and then the second to last invention was headphones. In the radio and LP record player presentations, both technologies had the impact of bonding families. They would cause families to gather around and listen to the radio or the music on the record player together. As record players have become more popular again, they have become a bonding experience between generations as parents will pass the records they've collected down to their children. These are the only two presentations that really emphasized how the technology helped bring people closer. I found that interesting because the more recent music or audio related technologies on which people presented, countered that impact; specifically, the iPod and the headphones

Screenshot showing that you can share
music by following people on Apple Music
(Names and profile pictures have been edited for privacy)

    Both the iPod and the headphones allowed people to listen to music privately even when in public, which is the complete opposite of what the earlier inventions involving music did. Although the more modern music related inventions have allowed listening to music to be an independent activity, music is still something that can be very bonding, especially with music streaming services, which allow people to listen to any song at any time. Before, in order to share music with people, they would either have to be with one another when the song was played, or purchase the record or CD. Now, people can go to Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, or even YouTube and listen to any song that is shared with them. Personally, I love sharing music with people. It's such a good feeling when you think someone may like a song and then they do! With a reported 40,000 songs being added to Spotify every day, there is no shortage or music that can be listened to or shared with others. 

    In conclusion, although new technologies with music have allowed people to listen to music privately, it will continue to be a media that can bond people because of the ability to share it with others and share common interests with it. I think is so because back at the time of the radio and LP record player, these were technologies were ones that people would mainly use in the presence of family and friends, and that correlation between music and family has carried on over the generations so now people still share music with others, just in a way that fits the current technology. 

"Frontline: The Facebook Dilemma" Reaction

    While watching part one of "Frontline: The Facebook Dilemma," I learned a lot more about the situation regarding Facebook and the way they handle our data. 

    I didn't join Facebook until May 2016, when I was 14 years old. I did not join so I could post updates about what was going on in my life; I got an account so I could vote for the Teen Choice Awards. At the time, you had to have a Facebook account to vote, so I decided to make one. I've always been very careful about the information I make public on my account to prevent strangers from seeing personal information. I have virtually no information about myself in my bio, I only become "friends" with people I actually know, and I don't even post that often. This all stems from a place of not wanting some actual individual to see my account and all my personal information, and then try and find me IN PERSON. Long story short, I don't want to get kidnapped. I'm well aware of those dangers of the internet and social media, and I had heard some information about Facebook selling data, but I did not know the details of it prior to watching the documentary. 

    In the documentary, they explained that Facebook began to partner with data companies, called brokers, that collected people's data. They would not only sell people's data without them knowing, but they would also use it to target specific content and ads to them. They would even go as far as to track people through pixels.

    Previously, I had heard that Facebook was selling data, but I never knew there were actual companies in America that were legally allowed to buy, store, and sell people's information. 

    I find it very unsettling that companies can do this, especially with information that I did not even know they had about me. This whole topic reminds me of something I've heard a lot of people talk about, which is our phones and computers listening to us. I actually hear a lot of people talk about this in relation to Facebook, but I've heard about it and had it happen on just normal websites as well. What will happen is someone will be having a verbal, in-person conversation, with their devices not in use, but still somewhere in the vicinity, about something random, let's say prom dresses for example, and then, the next time they are online they will have ads pop up for prom dresses. People have tried testing this with different products that they have never talked about or searched for previously. For instance, one YouTuber by the name of Mitchollow has performed a series of tests to see if Google or his computer is listening. 

    Although "Frontline: The Facebook Dilemma" did not discuss this specifically, my mother has noted that it has happened to her on several occasions where she will mention something and then see an advertisement related to that topic on her Facebook feed.

Screenshot from my personal Facebook account

    In conclusion, the idea of companies having information about me, aside from that which I knowingly publish myself, is quite concerning, and I'll be curious to see if the push for stricter privacy laws continues. 

    Finally, I feel as though the best way to close this blog post is to include the following screenshot I took on my Facebook account earlier today when I went to look up when I activated my account. Oh the irony. 

The History of YouTube

  

YouTube in 2005 via YouTube

The History

    Unbeknownst to many, the original idea for YouTube was not the video sharing platform we know and love today. When Jawed Karim, Steve Chen, and Chad Hurley first began to create the site, their plan was to create a dating website where people could post and view videos to get to know each other. After this idea barely took off, they changed their purpose. Instead of a dating site, they wanted to create a place where it would be easier for people to find videos. The story goes that this idea was inspired by the creators remembering how difficult it was to find footage online of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Super Bowl, as well as the tsunami in the Indian Ocean later that year. Once they had a new course of action, YouTube's beta version was launched in May of 2005, seven months prior to when it was released to the public, outside of beta. Since that point, YouTube has grown and evolved significantly over those 15 years to become the media giant it is now.

    In October of 2006, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion, an investment that clearly paid off. In February of 2020, Google announced that in 2019, YouTube brought in a total revenue of $14 billion. 

    In its almost 16 years of existence, YouTube has not been without controversy. Starting in August of 2016, there have been a series of events related to advertisement and content creators, sparking disputes that are still going on today.

    The fall of 2016 was the beginning of what many creators have labeled the "Adpocalypse," due to the significant decrease in revenue they were making. This was the result of three main events. First, in August of 2016, YouTube began to inform content creators of when their videos were demonetized, meaning they would not earn any of the ad revenue generated from it, due to the video breaking their "advertiser-friendly content guidelines."

    Then, in March of 2017, many major companies pulled their ads from YouTube after hearing that they were being played with extremist and offensive content. It is reported that this move cost the Google owned company $750 million.

    Finally, one month later, YouTube announced that they would be making their ad policies stricter, as well upping the requirements needed for creators to be eligible to be a part of their "Partner Program."

    Some creators believe that the second "Adpocalypse" was right around the corner, after YouTube updated its policy in 2019 to ban any sort content that "maliciously insults" people's gender, race, or sexual orientation. There was fear that this would significantly impact channels devoted to commentary videos as well as drama channels.

    In April of 2018, a woman entered YouTube's San Bruno headquarters and shot and injured three people, then killed herself. It has been reported that the woman was angry at YouTube for demonetizing and censoring her videos. 

    The most recent issue with YouTube, as a company, was in September of 2019 when they were fined $170 million by the FTC for collecting the data of kids under the age of 13 without parental consent. They were also required to implement a system that allows creators of family-friendly content to flag it as such.

YouTube's Evolution

    The first video ever posted to YouTube was entitled, "Me at the Zoo," and it was a video of Karim talking about rhinos while standing in front an exhibit of them at the San Diego Zoo. From this video on, the content and features of YouTube have changed drastically. 

    In December of 2007, YouTube made it possible for creating content for their site to be a career. This was possible through the launch of their "Partner Program," which gave some of the top creators the chance to earn a paycheck based on the amount of ad revenue generated from their content. 

    One of the most common uses for YouTube is to watch music videos from artists. After music companies aired their grievances to YouTube regarding piracy and unfair licensing terms, in April of 2009, Vivendi, a media company, partnered with the video sharing site to form vevo. Vevo is a music video service that has the capabilities of sharing music videos. Almost 12 years later, vevo is still connected to basically every music video that is posted. 

    Two years later, YouTube began to throw their hat into the ring in other areas by expanding the functions of their site, starting with the addition of YouTube Live in April of 2011. This feature gave people the chance to broadcast live events to the public. In the era of COVID-19, this has become extremely beneficial in my family's life as it has given us the chance to still watch my brother's basketball games, despite not being able to attend in person due to capacity restrictions. In the same year, YouTube also released a rental service to attempt to compete with the likes of Netflix and Hulu.

    2015 was a big year for YouTube, in which they launched three separate programs on their site. First, in February of 2015, they dropped YouTube Kids, a feature on the site that is devoted to kid-friendly material, and also features other parental controls that can be set up. This side of the platform will clock as many as eight million users per week.

    Next, in August, YouTube announced YouTube gaming, a service that allows gamers to live stream their videos games to viewers. This was created to compete with the Amazon owned company of the same purpose, Twitch.

    Finally, in October, YouTube created YouTube Red, a paid subscription service that allowed consumers to watch videos and stream music without ads, and see exclusive content from some top creators. Since this time, YouTube Red has evolved into YouTube Premium and its music streaming as split off to be a different entity known as YouTube Music.

    The last major change to YouTube in terms of its features occurred in April 2017, with the launch of YouTube TV. For $64.99 per month, YouTube TV is an on-demand streaming service that gives its customers access to Live Sports as a well as more than 85 channels, along with unlimited DVR storage. 

YouTube's Impact

    As a such a power house company and website for as long as it has been, YouTube has been able to make a huge impact on the world in many ways.

YouTube Election Hub via The Verge

    First, YouTube has impacted politics. They first hosted a presidential debate during the 2008 campaign cycle, and then in 2012, they launched the YouTube Election Hub. Here, speeches from both the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention were live streamed. There was also access to coverage from several different news organizations. During this campaign, seven out of the 16 candidates announced their run for presidency via YouTube.

    YouTube also is credited with having a major impact on the Arab Spring of 2011, a time when there were a series of uprisings in the middle east. People used YouTube to share their messages and goals, as well as to criticize the political system they were rebelling against. 

    One of the greatest impacts YouTube has had has been its role in creating an entire new career field known as "social media influencing." Once they began their "Partner Program," it gave people a chance to make a living off of creating and posting content to their channels. Since then, people have been able become influencers through their followings on Instagram, the now shut down app, Vine, and currently one of the biggest social media apps, TikTok. 

    Because of the diverse content on YouTube, people who have started careers on their have been able to expand into different areas thanks to their followings. For example, David Dobrik originally found fame on Vine, and later transitioned over to making four minute vlogs on his YouTube channel, which currently has 18.8 million subscribers. In his vlogs, he is known for hanging out with his friends, a group of YouTubers known as the VlogSquad, and surprising them with anything from wild animals to gifts such as free cars, or even meeting celebrities. Justin Bieber, Snoop Dogg, and Nicole Scherzinger are just a few of the many celebrities who have made cameos on his channel.

    Although Dobrik started on social media, he has branched out into other ventures. He served as a judge on the Nickelodeon show America's Most Musical Family, voiced a small part in The Angry Birds Movie 2, and is currently the host of a reality competition show on Discovery called, Dodgeball Thunderdome. 

    The multimillionaire is also connected to the other major way YouTube has impacted society. As mentioned earlier, YouTube has created stricter rules in terms of what kind of content is eligible for compensation for the ad revenue. When the "Adpocalypse" struck, Dobrik's channel was one of many that was impacted. In a video interview with Men's Health, he explained that at one point his checks from YouTube each months were "a little over $275,000", which was the result of his 60 million views per month. However, after the "Adpocalypse," Dobrik's paycheck decreased to $2000 a month, despite his 200 million views per month. The young star could be making more money had he chosen to adhere to YouTube's new rules regarding which content can be monetized, however, he did not want to censor or adjust the type of content that brought him to infamy. Although he had this massive drop in his paycheck from YouTube, Dobrik is still well-off financially with his many other business ventures, including his iconic "Clickbait" merchandise and other products he has created, such as a disposable camera app, a puzzle, and a perfume.

    Dobrik is one of many YouTubers that was affected by these policy changes. Throughout these times, there were some debates as to whether or not YouTube was unfairly censoring these creators. Whether or not it is fair, is up for debate, however, YouTube is not infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights due to the First Amendment only being applicable to the government limiting someone's six freedoms that are outlined in it. 

YouTube in 2021

    In conclusion, YouTube has become a social media powerhouse with content for any age and any interest. The company has gone through a massive evolution from where it began as a dating site. As the platform continues to grow, it will be interesting to see where they decide to take their site next. 

*Unless otherwise noted, the information used in this post was found in this Business Insider article*

"Individual Self-Fulfillment" & "Promote Innovation": My Key Theories of the Key Theories

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via WikiMedia Commons

    There are eight values of free expression, the summary of rights outlined in the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, that demonstrate its importance and why it is necessary. The eight values are Marketplace of Ideas, Participation in Self-Government, Stable Change, Individual Self-Fulfillment, Check on Governmental Power, Promote Tolerance, Promote Innovation, and Protect Dissent. At this point in my life, the values of free expression that are most important to me are Individual Self-Fulfillment and Promote Innovation.

    C. Edwin Baker describes Individual Self-Fulfillment, or Self-Actualization, as the value that explains how free expression helps people discover their true identity and have full autonomy. If people cannot speak their thoughts freely, it makes it harder for them to really understand who they are. This is most important to me right now because as a college student, I am at the point in my life that is all about discovering who I am. Obviously people's interests can change in the future, but in college, I am meant to find out what I want to spend my life, or at least the next part of my life, doing. 

    Not only does free expression help with discovering my identity through my passions, but it also helps with determining my values and beliefs. Typically, kids' values and beliefs are parallel to that of their parents because that's what they've been exposed to for their whole lives. However, once they reach high school, and college especially, they begin to re-evaluate those positions. Sometimes they end up keeping the ones they had before, and sometimes they form new ones. Either way, at this point, they have reasons for their beliefs; they aren't just echoing their parents' sentiments. Being able to express these newfound beliefs is a key part of solidifying them, and with that, ones identity. As a college student who has moved seven hours away from home and my parents, my surroundings, at times, are quite different than my house in terms of the morals, positions on some stances, as well as just the environment itself. The student body of High Point is not congruent to the student body of my high school or my town. Now that I am in a new place, as well as in college, where expressing beliefs is encouraged, I have had a greater opportunity to evaluate my stances and determine if I have those values for the right reasons. This would be much more difficult without free expression because if expression was not encouraged or protected, it could make it harder to talk through issues or hear opposing viewpoints.. 

    In sum, Individual Self-Fulfillment is very important to me right now because I am using my right to free expression to help determine who I am, what I want to do, and what I want to stand for. 

Recently rebooted movie poster comparisons
via Mountain Echo

    The other value that is important to me is Promote Innovation. Jack Balkin explains that this value describes how free expression benefits innovation by allowing people to create and think of new ideas without interference. In the abstract of the hyperlinked paper, Balkin emphasizes technological innovation, however, in my life, it is more applicable in the creative sense. Innovation is important to me because in the future, I would like to work in the entertainment industry in some capacity. My dream job would be to write and create movies and TV shows. I have always enjoyed writing and storytelling, and I would love
to bring those stories to life on the big and small screens. Right now, I currently think there is a lack of innovation in the film and television industries. Production companies seem to be creating more and more reboots of past movies and shows because they know they will turn a profit off of it. Although the lack of new original content is not a result of the government infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights, it is still a great example of what can happen if no innovation is allowed. In this scenario, innovation could be discouraged because production companies might be less inclined to risk putting money into a new idea when they know a remake will work. Granted, money is important to running a business, however, all of this emphasis on recreating what's already been done is taking away from new stories and limiting the innovation involved with creating said stories. After college, I want to go out to Los Angeles and create new content and new stories. Being able to freely express myself has allowed me to be creative with many aspects of my life, whether it be in the stories I write or the the school projects I create, which is why the value of Promote Innovation is so important to me. 

    Although Individual Self-Fulfillment and Promote Innovation are the two values of free expression that are most important to me, I think the value that is most vital to America right now is Protect Dissent. Protect Dissent, explained by Steve Shiffrin, is the label of the value that all people's opinions are protected by the First Amendment, no matter how few people agree with that opinion. People are allowed to express their grievances with the government and should be able to do so without fear of being silenced by the government. Also, although private actors are well within their rights to censor someone with a dissenting opinion, people need to understand that dissenting opinions ARE protected by the First Amendment and can help to create the best government. 

    This connects back to John Milton's value of Marketplace of Ideas which encourages all ideas to be put on the table so people have the most information when making a decision. In the end, when an idea is challenged by another, the truth of what the best option is will ultimately arise, thus leading to an improved government or the necessary solution to a given problem. Right now, America is extremely divided politically, and if people and organizations strive to silence the voices of those that disagree with their opinions, although it might not be unconstitutional, it still goes against the entire essence of the First Amendment. People have the right to express themselves and just because private actors can sensor them, that does not mean they should. Having a multitude of opinions is what makes a democracy, a democracy- a form of government in which the power comes from the governed. If all who are governed are only allowed to express the majority opinions, that creates a government where the power and control comes from the government itself, thus taking away the power that belongs to the people. In conclusion, in order to maintain the Marketplace of Ideas that is also vital, people must accept and incorporate the value of Promote Dissent and allow others to share their opinion, regardless of how unpopular it may be. 

    In summary, although all eight values of free expression are connected, Individual Self-Fulfillment and Promote Innovation are the most important to me right now as a college student who wants to create original movies and TV shows in the future. Of all of the values, Protect Dissent is the most vital to America right now because of how divided we are politically, which has caused a great deal of censorship to opposing views, thus stifling the Marketplace of Ideas, which is also important to America and any democracy that advocates for free expression.

The Media's Censorship of Media

 In full disclosure, I have never heard of ANTIWAR.COM or The American Conservative, so I was very curious to go through these sites. As I read more about these sites, I thought of many potential theories as to why these organizations are so underground. 

Sedition Act of 1918 Announcement
via @librarycongress on Twitter 

    One reason Antiwar and The American Conservative are not mainstream could be because of the effects of the 1918 Sedition Act. Although it was struck down in 1964, this act was originally created to silence anti-war protests during WWI. For a period of time, the government was able to control what views were published about the U.S.'s stance in foreign affairs, and it was illegal to speak out against their actions. Although no legal action can still be taken for something like this, there may be a perception that supporting a news outlet that is strongly anti-war is wrong because there was a previous conclusion that someone who is anti-war is also anti-America. 

    Another reasons they are not mainstream could be because of the censorship that is a result of media giants such as Twitter and Facebook, with the help of Google, Amazon, and Apple, controlling what is promoted on their sites. Both Twitter and Facebook have censored right leaning outlets by not pushing their headlines as they would a left outlet's. For example, Twitter froze The New York Post's Twitter account after the organization tweeted links to their articles about the Hunter Biden scandal, a story that had the potential to hurt Joe Biden's presidential campaign. More recently, Google, Amazon, and Apple blocked Parler, a Twitter-esque app with over a million users, and whose numbers were growing quickly as a result of many Trump supporters leaving Twitter following the former president's permanent ban from it. This showed a bias and censorship against Republican viewpoints, so it makes sense that these same companies would not push content from The American Conservative to their users. 

    Antiwar might be less mainstream because it is not necessarily news people are seeking out. In my limited life experience, I have found that a lot of people do not have a full understanding of the U.S. government's foreign affairs, nor an in-depth understanding of what is going on in places like the Middle East. This is very much a result of the ethnocentric mindset a lot of Americans hold where they are only focused on what is happening directly in our country and only concerned with issues directly affecting their lives.

    Mainstream media outlets are businesses that want to make money; they want to run stories that people
will click on and read, therefore they cater to what their readers wants to hear. They are not necessarily publishing fake news, but realistically, they cannot run a headline for every single event that happens, so they have to choose which headlines are the most important that will also please the most readers. For example, MSNBC readers commonly lean left, politically, therefore, they might be less inclined to click on stories about the bombs that were dropped in the Middle East during President Obama's presidency. On the other hand, the right leaning FoxNews readers might not want to read about the increase in civilian deaths due to U.S. airstrikes during the Trump Administration. 

    Due to the combination of people only wanting to read good things about people they like, as well as the lack of interest some Americans have towards our foreign affairs, news companies could be less inclined to feature stories about these situations. This feeds into the lack of knowledge people have about the situation, therefore, they have no desire to pursue these topics on sites such as Antiwar. 

    By no means am I claiming that the major news outlets do not report on foreign affairs. I am only saying that there seems to be less featured articles talking about the specifics of these topics. Therefore, since people are not seeing these headlines on their preferred news outlet, they will be less likely to further research into these topics using other sources

    In conclusion, although ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative are legitimate news outlets with accomplished writers, these sites are not mainstream due to a lack of interest over the topics they cover, as well as their political leanings limiting the amount of promotion from online platforms. 

The Truth About the First Amendment

 

First Amendment of the United States Constitution via LexRoll

  Although most people know the First Amendment prevents the United States government from imposing on people's freedom from religion, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom to petition a redress of grievances, there are a lot of nuances to it that many misunderstand or overlook. 

     One of the biggest misconceptions is that no one is allowed to infringe on any of one's freedom of the First Amendment; however, that is not the case. In fact, according to the State Action Doctrine, "Without government involvement, no constitutional claim can be made because only the government can violate your constitutional rights; therefore, the First Amendment does not reach private actors." This is the result of the first five words of the amendment, "Congress shall make no law," which limits potential violations of the first amendment to only actions taken by the government. Originally, it was limited to actions taken by Congress, however, the inclusion of state and local governments began in 1925 after the precedent-setting Supreme Court case of Gitlow v. New York.

    Another important component of the First Amendment and First Amendment Law is the Speech/Action Dichotomy. This question must be answered to determine if the First Amendment applies to a case or not. Under the First Amendment, freedom of speech is a protected right, however, actions are not. Despite this, actions can be protected under the First Amendment as protected speech if they are shown to be an expressive action. Actions are considered expressive if they are intended to convey a message to an audience. 

    Finally, one other misconception about the First Amendment is that it is absolute and a shield against any other law. This is incorrect, as there are exceptions to what it protects. For example, speech that incites panic or a threat to a government official is not protected as free speech. The First Amendment is also not a shield against laws of general applicability, meaning that one cannot vandalize a government building and rightfully claim it is an expressive action (which would grant protection under the First Amendment); they would be guilty of vandalism because the First Amendment is not a shield. 

Protestors at the Capitol Building via NBC News

    First Amendment debates have been a hot topic in the news and in Washington D.C., especially recently following the impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump for the incitement of the Capitol riots on January 6th. Although speech is typically protected under the First Amendment, incitement is one of the types of speech that can unprotected, specifically speech that incites "imminent lawless action." This precedent was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. If it is deemed that his speech was the instigator to the Capitol riots, he would not be protected by the First Amendment, and the U.S. Senate can choose to convict him for the charge of incitement of insurrection. 

    There have been arguments on both sides as to whether or not President Trump incited the riots. Danny Cevallos for NBC news argued that in a criminal court, there is a solid defense that could be made in his favor that would be strong enough to plant reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. However, he also writes that even though that is the case criminally, in the Senate they are only "bound by the two-thirds supermajority vote standard - and not much else," thus acknowledging the impeachment trial will work differently than a typical criminal trial.

    On the other side, Joshua Matz and Norm Eisen published an Opinion piece for Politico claiming that Trump's speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. They point out that in the past the Supreme Court has held government officials to a standard where they have less First Amendment protections because of their duties, therefore President Trump should not have more protection than others. They also stated, "...even if Trump's statements would not count as "incitement" under cases limiting the government's power to punished private speakers, the House is fully authorized to find that Trump's actions constitute a high crime and misdemeanor," adding their belief that his statements fully instigated the riots at the Capitol. 

    In conclusion, the First Amendment allows people to speak out about their thoughts, practice whatever religious beliefs they so choose, publish articles that may paint political figures in a negative light, and many more things, freely without fear of constitutionally-just government infringement. On the hand, it does not allow people induce panic, make true threats, incite imminent lawless action, as well as a few other types speech. It also does not condone the usage of the First Amendment as protection against other laws of general applicability.