When deciding whether Facebook is good or not, we have to ask ourselves, is the internet good? Since Facebook, Google, and other big corporations are the sole reason for providing us with ads and easier access to information, it’s only natural for them to go through our browsing history. They take all of our data and sell it for profits and ads. When the internet becomes more advanced, all the data then will still be sold and used. The internet won’t be as confusing especially as they find the publics’ web patterns like they are doing now. There’s no denying that we won’t have surveillance-free internet services anytime soon. These corporations use ads as a tactic to both advertise and encourage certain behaviors that would continue to separate communities. Part of the reason why the popularity of the internet increased was because of websites like AOL and MySpace. In other words, corporations such as Google and Facebook use one’s internet history as a source of profit based on the exchange of information which as a result, continues to promote Fake News due to the existence of ads.    

At present, the internet can be seen as an experimenting ground for corporations and advertisers. From background knowledge, I’ve gathered enough information to understand that all our data will be collected and used to advance the usability of the internet and AI. Edward Snowden and the Netflix documentary “The Social Delima” have shown us there is little to no morals in this industry because the main reason for surveillance and internet data collection is to gain profits and advance the use of smart technology. In the Vox article, Mark Zuckerberg spoke with a Harvard professor on how paying for ad-free Facebook would be useless. Kurt Wagner in “Mark Zuckerburg Explains Why An Ad-Free Isn’t As Simple It Sounds”  writes how Mark replies on the question of an ad-free Facebook “And as a [matter of principle], we are not going to just offer a control like that to people who pay,” he continued by stating that, “If we’re going to give controls over data use, we’re going to do that for everyone in the community.”(Kurt Wagner, “Mark Zuckerburg Explains Why An Ad-Free Isn’t As Simple It Sounds”) In this part can be inferred as him saying that people don’t need to pay for data use control. It’s useless because he knows most people don’t mind or can’t comprehend how our data is used and monitored. They can’t profit off of data use control for now. They’re not thinking of how this affects us in the present because they work in trial and error. Since 2010, Mark Zuckerberg has yet to stop using Facebook users, data, and history data. The FTC, the congressional commission designed to oversee and enforce consumer protections, has had time and time to investigate Facebook’s privacy policies. Yet, there were few actions done towards handling Facebook’s clear violations of privacy policies which shows how much of this industry and its corporations are untouchable.

    The internet encourages us to be unapologetically individualistic because of how America itself encourages freedom of speech. If one says Facebook is terrible, then that means all of the internet and the whole idea of the internet is awful. Although I’m not an avid user of Facebook, a Stanford study found that people who deactivate Facebook are more likely to read fake news than those who avidly are on Facebook. In Tom Fodgen “Just How Bad Is Facebook For Us” he says “This might suggest that regular Facebook users are less likely to seek out news coverage of current events, relying on Facebook to keep them informed” ( Tom Fodgen, “Just How Bad Is Facebook For Us?”). Facebook has many more sources and gives simple and easy to understand information regarding politics. People are more polarized and biased to either be democratic or Republican. It at least is more manageable for our average internet user to understand. 

Social media, in general, harms our mental health. We do have higher percentages of depression, suicide, and anxiety in our youths and overall population. It is a sensitive topic that still needs heavy research. As mentioned in the article by Tom Fogden, explaining how there are not enough studies and research on this topic. “However, most of the academic work out there based on small-scale studies, while a lot of perceived evidence from outside academia has been anecdotal.”(Tom Fodgen, “Just How Bad Is Facebook For Us?”). Tom Fogden argues how the studies weren’t as reliable as the one that Standford conducted. I agree with Fogden that this research on mental health is brand new. There could be other reasons why the internet can trigger or create more mental health issues. Facebook isn’t the only reason for the increase in mental health. It has to do with social media’s whole idea and how fast-paced and competitive things are. Facebook also happens to be part of it. Magazines, radio, and now the internet have had a significant toll on our mental health. For example, as a female, I see how society treats women, how their appearance will always be criticized and told to fit a specific body type for each era. Now that we get to choose who we interact with, we can see how many girls deal with the same problems and change our beauty standards. They may be niche and glamourize in our mainstream society, but it’s still an improvement, even if small. 

Originally, in my first blog about Facebook, I was against Facebook and I related it to the use of Twitter and how people quickly become judgemental. I had mainly focused on how it also promotes behavior where people would take their anger out on others, which creates a toxic and gullible experience for many people. I argued how quick we are to believe big corporations and how advertisements are everywhere. We are so easy to think that we have so much control over our environment when, in reality, big corporations like Google are the ones who have control over what we are exposed to. I still agree with the fact that Facebook is horrible and is controlling. In this blog, I also believe that the internet plays a role in our behavior. We rely on news and biased reports that these social platforms tend to consistently expose us to, this would then influence how we make judgments. If I say Facebook is terrible, I would be hypocritical because I still use Twitter and other social media. Although they have different names, they are all the same because they are all using similar formats as well as using our data.

John Oliver says how we can’t choose to be ignorant anymore. When asking whether Edward Snowden is a traitor I ask myself, did he have different morals from the government? Does the government even have enough empathy to turn away from using new technologies being used against citizens and innocent people?

Like John Oliver shows there are people who side with the military. Especially in America we are wired to believe that our governments and military soldiers are heroes. To the point that we sacrifice our privacy. 

New technology has so much information. As well, they use advanced knowledge on psychology on what drives a person to choose a president and we are easily controlled by fear. 

When I think about mass surveillance I think of how the police can use our phones and wire tap it to criminate more Black Americans and poor communities more often in the future. 

As technology gets better and this sort of technology is more advanced in the police and government they will have more power over us. 

In the interview with John Oliver I noticed how he expected some people to not be educated on what information he revealed. I knew this would happen as well, and I think everyone who is against our government knows that this isn’t a fight every citizen will take part in. Like mentioned before in Ellsberg, Wigand, and Snowden, and Edward Snowden is just releasing information that is vital but common sense in the activist communities. 

This is mentioned in the Netflix documentary social dilemma and how this generation alone has had more negative effects because of how the internet is being used. 

when I see blogs, vlogs, YouTube videos, Twitter, and other apps I notice of how much information we share and how everything from what we ate, vacations, personal feelings and insecurities as expressed. I notice how open we are with strangers. Personally I feel like we don’t know exactly how that could affect us. How there are many predators, groomers, and hackers who use our information to gain our trust or use our address to kidnap or stalk us. Now think of how even using our smartphones without sharing anything with social media but our text messages and notes are hacked and even our google search history sold to advertisers. We are buying our phones so that our information can be sold or used as well without our knowledge of it. Now if you worked in these government or secret agencies/ organizations, and you had any moral compass because you know money doesn’t control all of us. Would you leak this information to our society? 

Yes, I bet many workers have thought about it, But like the book 1984 and Big Brother says; we are programmed to think that if we talk against our government and want change, we are traitors and are manipulated to think that we have no power to ever change our government. Our only power as citizens is to vote? How is that fair, since, like the Vice, documentary says, it’s not one president but the entire history of presidents that have worked to use surveillance and fear to control us. 

When I say they have control I mean that it’s all illusions, since money is what controls our society. Any normal citizen just has to trust our government with fickle lies about our freedom of speech and how the government protects our privacy. As well with propaganda so that anyone who’s not as knowledgeable thinks that we are the best country and that nothing needs that much change. Edward Snowden says in his interviews, it’s a lot complicated. To go against our government takes a lot of work and paranoia. People who have normal lives shouldn’t do this and shouldn’t change our ways, it would be pointless to do so because our government has so much money and technologies working with that is impossible. 

There has been many hacks and leaks, still the government has many loyal followers. President Trump was made president even though he was shown to be part of Epstein list of people he worked with. Why is that? It seems like there are no morals in our government.  No matter how many leaks are sent to the internet and media our government and these organizations aren’t being taken accountable instead the ones whose lives are changed are people like Edwards Snowden, Ellsberg, Wigand.

In this world nothing is free. Even our phones come with a price. Our information has a price tag on it as well. With everything that’s been going on and all the information that was once a conspiracy theory, I have to say that’s hard to process and when things are hard to process many think that’s either not that big of a deal or they disassociate from those ideas. Like Snowden said that he just wanted this story to come out. There’s not exactly a clear solution like many of the whistleblowers; they are just leaks that needed to be told. With his leaks there are going to be small regulations and advertising that let us know that there are possibilities of secure and safe internet use. Though that doesn’t mean all of what Wigand, Ellsberg and Snowden leaked and ruined their lives for are going to be fully solved.

Looking at the cover reminded me of this other album “My Bloody Valentine” that was written by Loveless, an Irish Rock band. Both album covers show very vibrant colors and 90s inspired styles. These album covers and a few of their songs reminds me of American rock and the mainstreamed songs that can be found in many coming of age TV shows and movies. Shows like “Buffy the Vampire” or “One Tree Hill” that came out and were still airing before and during the 2000s. In my first listenings I felt like Avril Levigne was inspired by Alanis Morissette. I say this because throughout the whole time I listened to the “Jagged Little Pill” album I thought about “Complicated” by Avril Levigne, and “Sk8er Boi”. The whole time I thought of how both female artists are able to show how much they are full of passion and always had songs full of emotions and stories. 

Personally I can only go lengths to understand Alanis Morissette songs. I read her song lyrics and I personally would skip “Forgiven” although I know there’s more to the songs. Some of Alanis songs express themes of growing in and out of religion but also going through mistakes in past relationships and how she faced deceit in other people. Still my least favorite, along with “You Learn”, because it’s not really my style and it sounds preachy with the lyrics “You live, you learn” as well as the music video. In “You Learn” music video, it felt a bit out of place, random and wasn’t as inspiring as her other music videos. In “You learn” music video you see her walking past people whether it’s in an urban area or riding a white horse in the city while randomly changing into different colored tracksuits. What also caught me off guard the cartwheeling or the part where she kisses a random street performer and then walks away. 

My favorite parts of the album and the songs were in, “You Oughta know” beginning lyrics. She sings “I want you to know that I am happy for you. I wish nothing but the best for you both,” with a loathsome tone. It implies she resents the person she’s writing this towards. Secondly I like the way the harmonica fits songs like “Hand In My Pocket” and the song “All I Really Want”. “Ironic” has to be one of my favorite music videos. I like “Ironic” music video because it shows her on a road trip with herself, different takes of her as if there’s more than one of her. I like the way it’s filmed, and how it only takes place inside a car. It’s different from how she takes the heartbreak and pain in “You Oughta Know” music video. She used “You Oughta Know” as a more traditionally rock music video, full of anger that’s more visible than what she showed on “Ironic”. In “Ironic” she was more playful and took it as misfortunes being part of life yet in both music videos you can see her personality and strong emotions flow through her movements and her dances.

The whole album’s themes ties back to the acknowledgement about the many troubles life brings her. Whether it’s about being disrespected, failed relationships, dealing with men in the music industry, worrying about her friend MaryJane’s mental health, and her feelings, Alanis is able to freely express herself through this genre. They are all relatable and remind me of a recent singer by the name Rina Sawayama. Both of these artists have a way of making different styles and genres shape their albums. Some songs from Rina Sawayama and Alanis Morissette have in common like “Right Through You” and Sawayama’s “STFU”. Both of these songs talk about men and the music industry, vocalizing how women are treated unfairly. As well as Alanis “Hand In My Pocket” and Rina Sawayama “Love me 4 Me” talk about loving themselves even if they aren’t  what society would call as perfect. I make these comparisons because I listen to many female artists and their similar styles in them. Everytime I listened to one of Alanis “Jagged Little Pill” songs I’d think of how many other artists who’d switch genres, use electric guitars and feel more expressive through  rock music to this day.

Cbc.ca interview “You Oughta Know: an Oral History of Alanis Morissette’s Jagged Little Pill” Ballard says, “we were just writing songs and I think that’s the best thing that could’ve happened, because I think she was much too original.” Like I said before, she has a clear way of expressing her personality and a way of expressing how she feels indirectly with singing tones in all her songs. Many female artists now are very expressive and full of similar subjects Alanis Morisette expressed in her “Jagged Little Pill” album. In another article by cbc.ca “Jagged Little Pill at 25: How Alanis Morissette Tapped into Female Rage and Changed Music for Good” in the article she expresses her take on the topic of rage and anger expressed by women in music. “Big part of their success was that they unapologetically tapped into an artery of raw female emotion — especially anger, says Morissette,” I highly agree with this portion of the article., There’s this endless stream of talent when artists, especially women, learn that anger is part of our important emotions and shouldn’t be left out when writing music. Alanis shows how there’s a lot of potential for artist growth when sharing anger and themes around that emotion

 TREM’s original tv show All in Favor is a spin-off of webseries, Unproductive. The pilot episode shows how students use their voices to come up with conclusions of how issues should be solved. Whether a student should be expelled or a professor should be fired. 

Off the bat I’m team Billie. She comes out being assured of her every decision in every meeting. She shows the most logical way of dealing with 

conflicts that come up during the meetings. 

All the students including Aaron, Billie, Liam and Olivia had valid points during the meetings. Though Billie has more cogent arguments. I agree with Billie on Lex Stone being evaluated. 

The characters saying at the beginning in their first meeting on the question should the student be expelled from college for plagiarism? “Not everyone is perfect” Is correct, Though there will always be consequences, even if they are small.  It comes up again in their second meeting. Lex Stone knows she made a mistake, Liam and Matt both can empathize with her as well. 

“It’s just a Tweet.” Is insensitive. Instead of our Era being ashamed of how we’re quick to cancel someone for a tweet we should take it as having low tolerance for discrimination and shaming people for their sexuality. If we continue to call passive-aggressive racism and homophobia  jokes, oppression and apathy will continue to keep happening and it will only worsen. This Era’s downfall is making jokes about serious things like racism, transphobia, and homophobia. Another example of how Jokes can hurt movements is like the name “Karen.” Naming someone who is privileged and controversial as Karen only dilutes the fact that a white woman can get away with oppression, racism, homophobia and harassment. Jokes only hurt our fight for change because it blurs our vision of what’s right and wrong. 

Lex Stone is a controversial character on All In Favor. In this Pilot Episode her character didn’t learn her lesson and chose to instead quietly quit to save herself from getting any consequences. Like many celebrities and businesses when they are “cancelled,” they don’t exactly want to admit what they said was wrong. Lex Stone knew the head of the college wasn’t going to let it go. In what I can agree is that we all have things that we regret saying and doing when we were ignorant and not really thinking of others feelings. That is a valid excuse but we should understand that there are consequences to actions and words. Especially when you’re a professional like Lex Stone where she has a boss and students. Though it’s not appropriate if all her students and college peers already know of it. Those mistakes can ruin relationships and make people uncomfortable. It leads to complaints from students and professors who don’t stand that type of inappropriate behavior. Like Billie, Billie was already fond of Professor Stone. She says just because they do something good doesn’t mean they are a good person. She’s right, you can be nice to your friends and to your family but that doesn’t excuse someone from being racist or homophobic at all.

Cancel culture is sometimes taken more seriously then it actually is. It feels like a trend, one influencer at a time being caught doing/ something immoral. From what I gather, in Harper’s letter is a response on how people can easily get fired or be canceled t over a simple everyday mistake humans tend to make. People who have jobs that rely on social media and the internet can sometimes live in fear and aganozie the day it’s their turn to be cancelled. I agree we don’t know all the answers, and our opinions are always changing and evolving. I agree that we shouldn’t be cancelled for having different opinions.

Bari Weis quote on his letter reforming the New York Times was something I’ve agreed with. “Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions” Bari Weis saying this makes me realize how people are not genuine in their work and put up a performances like mainstream brands so when someone doesn’t stick to being performative and are more genuine of how they think they are more likely to be canceled. It reminded me of my high school teacher’s lesson. How historians will always be biased and present facts but also from their point of view. Meaning you’re not supposed to agree with everything they state. One thing social media has taught me about media and businesses is that they will say anything be seen as non threatening. It’s all a performance to get views and advertisements out.

Though when I think about social media, cancel culture and celebrities I think of the beginning of coronavirus lockdown. I remember all these tone deaf celebrities making it impossible to watch Tik Toks and how they were cancelled for it. One other example of this was Vanessa Hudgens’ instagram response to Coronavirus. It angered people because of her indifference to death. Did they deserve it? Especially if they are a celebrity they need to know who their audience is social media is. Some celebrities don’t understand that their audience seek empathy and perfect responses to things like coronavirus and our political climate. 

Cancel culture is viewed as the internet response to people being controversial. When it’s a normal response to the insane things celebrities try to get away with. Ellen should be cancelled because she has mistreated her workers. “These people are not getting canceled for everyday mistakes. These are all people whose insensitivity, if not outright monstrousness, are a matter of routine for them.” People like her are not victims of bullying. They are the bullies, you see bullying in real life has a huge impact. Like the story of Marriah Carrey miscarriage, ellen revealed to the audience that marriah was pregnant. To clear that rumor, Mariah drinked alcohol because Ellen put her on the spot. From time to time she’s shown how apathetic she is to others. Yet desperation shows with the staged house invasion and the infamous video of her crying. Though social media already knows that it only shows that she knows the attention is on her. Famous people never truly apologize because in the real world they are still millionaires, and will just keep getting richer. 

With that being said, Cancel Culture Is a good thing, because racism, pedophiles and rapists should be exposed, fired and canceled. As social media progresses and people become more comfortable sharing stories and expressing themselves. There comes a limit and a time where things like pedophilia is normalized. Just like people getting fired over simple things theres times where even if people are mysonnists who try to normalise pedophilia, they are cancled yet still have not given any real repercausions, people like Donald Trump, Hollywood directors ike Michael Bay arent affected by cancel culture.

     Further explanation Cancel culture goes away, and forgotten like a trend,, for example the #MeToo movements where people aren’t taken seriously. An example of this is Alexander Wang has been cancelled several times for sexual harassment and he is still very successful. Black Lives Matter Movements where people who speak up go missing and the media ignoring and criminalizing the movement. Cancel culture does have power in that small people like newspaper authors, doctors, or college students, teachers can lose their jobs over sometimes trivial things but yet it’s still an important thing for social media. I agree that it can step out boundaries and normalise being toxic and bullying. That’s where it should change, but that’s an individual’s fault where they can take advantage of cancel culture for their malicious intent of firing and hurting others life like in Bari Weis case, being harassed by his coworkers on Twitter. 

It all comes down to the brands stance and their morals. Companies like the New York times have power over their workers and can fire the source of negative response. For example Brands and schools that say to their workers shouldnt show no political stance. During Black Lives Matter movement there has been a teacher fired for wearing a black lives matter mask. Founded in article, Newspath, CBS Austin (Photo: CBS. “Texas Teacher Fired after Refusing to Stop Wearing Black Lives Matter Mask.” KEYE, KEYE, 22 Sept. 2020. Andrew Sullivan’s letter proves that point. “ I agree with some of the critics that it’s a little nuts to say I’ve just been “canceled,” sent into oblivion and exile for some alleged sin. I haven’t. I’m just no longer going to be writing for a magazine that has every right to hire and fire anyone it wants when it comes to the content of what it wants to publish.” cancel culture almost seems like an excuse not to blame the brands themselves for firing newspaper authors, students, and teachers.

With time, doesn’t the FDA reveal what’s harmful and kills people? Like in the “60-Minute” piece and film Dr.Wigand says that, “no matter how many regulations are made, people are still going to do it,” so why did Jeffrey Wigand think that exposing confidential information was necessary? I believe that when you go to the president of a brand/company and they tell you they don’t want to hear your complaints or ideas of a safer cigarette, you have to choose their side or just quit. Not necessarily quit on the idea of creating a safer cigarette but work on it with others who would both want that idea and invest in its growth, without exposing companies and confidentiality. 

There’s always a heavy price that comes with exposing information that was deemed classified. In the cases of both Wigand and Ellsberg both had sudden new information that changed their perspective on who they were working with. The overlapping comparisons to Ellsberg is Confidentiality agreements. Although it’s best to reveal things that can be harmful in our society, when you’re part of a business or organization it’s best to just step back and vaguely warn others especially if you signed a contract that is meant to keep confidential information hidden. The only difference is that Ellsberg had nothing to lose, he knew he was going to jail, and he had also participated in the army showing how he could leave everything behind for his research and protecting soldiers.. If that doesn’t come to show any difference, there’s also the part where Jeffrey Wigand was threatened through voice messages, these threats which questions about their families safety. This shows that Ellsberg had nothing to lose while Wigand did. Wigand was scared enough to buy a handgun. Just by “messing” with a tobacco company so many things could have and did happen. I think Wigand was under a lot of stress to even comprehend what his actions could lead him to. He lost his wife to all of the stress and mess that came with exposing confidential information on “60-Minutes” and working on a safer cigarette. 

Yes, whistleblowers are very important. It’s mentioned that we in the present already know how harmful cigarettes are, and how evil these companies are. Fast food, cigarettes, drugs, and there’s even tap water that can cause disease which would lead to death. We all know this, that’s how companies profit, through addiction and people’s bad habits. Many companies are corrupt yet there’s still cigarettes being made, fast food is still extremely popular, and for some drugs are needed to ‘live’. That’s why when I read that Wigand is trapped in a war between the government and its attempts to regulate the $50 billion tobacco industry, I think that it’s not that surprising. One of my history classes lessons was how America and capitalism is meant to keep the government away from businesses and try to regulate them. That’s how profits are made, that’s why so many businesses get away with tax frauds and go without paying as much money as we think they do. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be a whistleblower and I wouldn’t be proud to be one either just because I would know they’d just get rid of me and wouldn’t change at all. I think Jeffery Wigand already knew  this, with this information in mind, is this one reason why Dr.Wigand regrets being a whistleblower? 

Moving on to CBS and “60-Minutes” this is an important time in American history where cigarette companies are being exposed. I feel like in that age of films and shows many wanted to expose companies like this with documentaries and such. If I’m not wrong this whole spiel feels like it’s similar to cancel culture, companies like these still remain, and their products still cause cancer. Cancel culture I feel is in today’s era as a way to bully others and shame for past mistakes all the while big corporations don’t get any type of accountability. I feel like “60-inutes” and Lowell Bergman are part of shows that show both sides of the story but are biased to Wellberg since he exposed how detrimental tobacco companies are. This reminds me of Netflix’s horrible “Tiger King”, since Tigers and wild animals are still part of America as is tobacco and cigarettes. Though both of these films just show how much people can get away with things when it comes to owning companies and zoo’s. 

When the question, should an artist take creative license, comes up I immediately say yes. Since a creative license is a form of getting copyrights it’s very important. The only way to be taken seriously with all this is a creative licence so that you hold a much more credible title. When you have a creative licence you can’t be told how to film and what to share in your films. So many legal things come into play, like in “Tiger King”. “Tiger King” is a documentary series that follows Joe Exotica who runs a zoo full of tigers, and it also follows others, both infamous and famous, tiger petting Zoo owners. These types of documents expose so many things and sometimes when you’re working with such sensitive information people think that they can sue you or threaten you to delete footage. Documentaries and films are not to be controlled by outsiders. Both of the conflicts have so much information about companies and zoo’s, its important to get a creative lisecne when creating films like these because anyone of the zoo owners or companies could decide that they are painted the wrong way and decide to take the directors or film producers to court and file lawsuits against them.

Knowing what Daniel Ellsberg knew I would have simply quit my job and just warn others with as little information as possible so that they wouldn’t get me in trouble like Ellsberg. I wouldn’t blow the whistle simply because I was part of it and chose such a job that requires me to keep secrets and work with the government. Everyone at this point knows how much the government officials and presidents lie about their intentions. No matter how inhumane and morally questioning it is, it’s still a very secretiative job that has confidential government files that shouldn’t be released to the news and press.

I know Ellsberg didn’t just randomly release the files to the press one day, this was planned and talked about. In a world where people believe that they have to trust the government, only radicals and people who want to be liberated want the truth. So people like Ellesberg do very risky things for those people. It seems reckless and I know you knew you’d go to jail but, Ellsberg you could have just left your job at the Pentagon and become a part of helping volunteering at organizations or have gotten another job that fulfilled what you believed was right. What I saw in  the documentary is that working with secrets and the government, you learn so much that as a result you would start to see the world differently. You were part of a world where you knew every secret about the government and what they would hide from the public, whether it’s for war reasons or to keep the public “calm” so there’s less protest then there should be. My question is why did you start with the Vietnam war, was it because you were wronged and highly invested in the war’s ending?

With what history has already shown was that it wasnt that shocking that the Vietnam war was started by the U.S. What I still don’t understand is how army’s and soldiers choose to fight for the government. If they already know Vietnam was just a poorer country, poorer than countries like China, and the U.S. my question for Ellsberg would be why does the government play with innocent lives of soldiers and foriegn armies? Why do they want to militarize and then criminalize countries like Vietnam? Many of us don’t side with the government, war for the government is just a tool to seem better than the other country. Having a war doesn’t fix any of our problems but adds further tension and damage to a country’s relation with one another. Ellsberg was part of the army but it’s hard to understand how it can be so normal to fight “for our country” when it wasn’t as simple as done. 

    I feel like to this day the most dangerous thing a person can do is trust the government. There’s too much that they know that the public doesn’t know. Some reasons make sense, as to why they hide things and keep so many secrets. One reason to hide such things from the public could be that people aren’t ready to believe this crazy world. Sometimes things come out of Twitter now and it’s hard to process. There’s this one rumor about Neil Armstrong faking a landing on the moon and I still don’t know if it is safe to say that it’s true or not. I tend to always question myself and ask did Neil Armstrong really fake the moon landing? Another recently released information was about having found another dimension that says people live old to young. I still don’t know if that information is real or if I’m just reading it from a weird part of the internet. 

I would side with the idea that the press shouldnt be releasing such secrets about the government. It’s very dangerous especially today. So to keep the peace I would recommend they don’t, though if it were to happen again I would gladly read what the press and the news articles have to say. Was Daniel Ellsberg the first to release information on government secrets? In the documentary it was said that there was news or rumors on government secrets already. Ellsberg’s acquaintance knew not to trust the government and how they did many immoral things, Daniel Ellsberg was just someone who gave the radicals and activists more evidence. I don’t think exposing how the Vietnam war was a bad decision like Daniel Ellsberg says on the NPR interview because the people that weren’t drafted knew that the Vietnam war was unnecessary violence. To the Pentagon, Daniel Ellsberg is the most dangerous man. The Pentagon is very secretive and should be picker in order to prevent from hiring people like Daniel especially when he’s surrounded by others who believe that speaking up against what is wrong is right. It was Nixon who said that Daneil Ellsberg was a dangerous man. So when such questions are asked, people need to remind themselves that things aren’t that simple. Activists and people who want more equal power as the president and government would do the same thing Daniel Ellsberg did. In the news one small scream or riot and people are easily criminalized, so it’s not that hard to refrain myself from believing what the government says, calling Ellsberg a dangerous man because he just wanted everyone to know that they shouldn’t fully trust the government.

Listening to Mercury Theater/Orson Welles’ War Of The Worlds in full made me realize how I’d also be fooled. I’d question it but I’d still somehow believe everything. 7:15 minutes into it and they sound like they are doing an important report/ investigation. The clock noise in the background sounds intense and adds to the mystery as they unravel the events that they are describing. “Special interview with professor Pearson” at 9:28, then the three explosions? Reported meteor!!? I’d quickly walk over to my mom to turn on the radio from the room she’s in. I wouldn’t think twice I’d it’s fake news or not. “Look around” the speaker would tells the listener as they set the scene with the windy sounds they created in the studio at 12:02. So much information was given during that broadcast duration as if it was a real news report.

With the amount of information that the broadcasters had shared it’d be easy to believe that earth was invaded by outsiders. I also could imagine hearing my mom talking with her cousins about what’s being reported on the radio as well. You can see her worried expression. Omg there was a little bit of glitching and so much commotion from the people investigating. His descriptions of the Martian’s! In the timestamps of 16:15 things are getting tensed… They set the scene of what’s happening so well and are great at using the radio. Think about it? Where else could you find fast news from in the 1930s?

The Night America Trembled 1957-H.G. Wells War Of The worlds; Time stamps, 32.57 minutes it shows that the raídos stories are gravely affecting the police stations and seems to be making people call the station, meaning the police are receiving multiple calls from people. It’s terrible to see how back in War Of Worlds there were only radio stations as “reliable sources of news,” newspapers, and magazines as well.  41:44 and a few minutes before show an older woman’s expression of hopelessness and fear and the babysitter calling for help from the parents “hurry hurry!” shows examples of how fake news can have big effects on people’s safety.  

The internet and the radio have things in common. When the police say “no I don’t have that information yet,” Yet the radio is making this commentary and acting like they are exactly there is scary. They read from a script and are focused on sounding genuinely scared. Just like the internet now, they are both paranoia inducing, they present things as if they are factual and dangerous to the public. 

If I was there I would have felt awfully uncomfortable turning on the news and reading newspapers. I would refrain myself from ever doing this. It seems to give people this sense of restlessness. 36:47 watching the babysitting girl listening to the news and her expression is what I imagined my mom doing. People nowadays look at the news and think the world is ending. We don’t know how to handle such intense information especially with the way the radio is giving the news. They are acting like they are in a movie, that’s what’s horrible about War Of Worlds. The time around the 1950s, where things like the radio and newspapers were the only source of news and information can lead the public to believing in fake news.

Even now we get tricked into thinking the things are true when they aren’t.  The more outrageous the news is, the more people view it. “The Martians are coming!” 

As well as “I think this will be our last broadcasting.” Are both ways to get views out of the public. Think of YouTube and Clickbait, people are tricking the public into these crazy and insane things that happen to them when it could just be fake or it could be acting. Now in the present, 2020 it’s way too often that we can’t tell what’s real and what’s fake. It’s honestly too difficult to tell. That’s why it’s still so dangerous and scary when things like this pandemic and important news gets tangled in fake news. I think about the new ways our technologies are being used like deep fakes, and fake twitter accounts, hacked twitter accounts. People, and anyone I mean, can use these new updates to spread lies and fears.

Reading the articles “ The Infamous “War Of The Worlds” Radio Broadcast Was A Magnificent Fluke” made me realize that there was a mixture of experimenting and realizing they can get popularity from doing World Of Worlds. “no one involved with War of the Worlds expected to deceive any listeners, because they all found the story too silly and improbable to ever be taken seriously.” This opened a memory for me. of when i was younger, i believed that any monster on the television could come to life. Pranks and white-lies at the heat of the moment seem real to almost anyone, no matter what age they are. I remember how genuine my cousins sounded when I was smaller. Still part of me wants to believe it’s real when I know it was a lie. I understand how they wanted to create a new way of storytelling with actors and such terrifying descriptions. Though imagine all the stories of aliens on Netflix, many people believe them and have some sort of paranoia of aliens and things outside of our planet. 

For every fake news there’s always going to be numerous people who believe or begin to believe the lies. It’s a mixture of wanting to believe and the already existing paranoia inside of them especially on those subjects, so in other words fake news triggers the already existing paranoia to increase in severity.

Websites like Facebook have shaped our era of sharing. Though it is more than what they advertise themselves to be, they hold so much power and it’s only used to benefit their agenda. Facebook hasn’t been good for this world. For starters they only push people to be close minded and don’t prevent its consumers from believing fake news, and theories. When I think of Facebook itself I think of anti-vaccine moms that spread unreliable information to validate their theories.  

Though it’s not just facebook that is horrible, it’s also most apps with high usage, like Youtube, Twitter, Google, and Facebook owned Instagram.  From  Netflix,  Social Dilemma, a documentary where experts who have worked with Brands like Facebook and Google expose how they have affected the human mind. “If you’re not paying for the product then you are the product”  Is a quote from the documentary that has been spreading, based on my Twitter, all over twitter there’s a saying “how is this app free?” People ask this because the app is very entertaining and a lot of feuds occur there. It all makes us wonder if they are gathering all of our information for the future AI’s. . 

An example: Things like the rabbit whole, mentioned in the Netflix documentary, about Youtube and how people comment it on weird and absurd videos. Youtube has recommended conspiracy theories or similar videos to keep you watching, and make you believe and fear things that aren’t true. Creating a more gullible society, It may seem like it’s hard to believe that theories like the earth is flat are true. 

Facebook and the internet have not been helpful at all. Studies have found that there is more political polarization, one side thinks they are smarter than the other. It’s only showing that we are easily manipulated and can easily take our focus away from important situations. 

To this day I still feel like it hasn’t affected me in some ways but then I look back and realize it’s not in our control. I remember the whole save the turtles frenzy that went on. How everyone consumes the whole buy tote bags, buy reusable metal straws, and go thrifting. That was an advertisement, it was putting the blame on the consumers and not the businesses that make surplus and don’t recycle their products for them to not end up in oceans. “However, the Pentagon does not acknowledge that its own fuel use is a part of the problem or that reductions in Pentagon fuel use are a potentially significant way to reduce the risks of climate-caused national security risks,” writes Neta C. Crawford, a professor of political science at Boston University, in the report. In an article by Yoder, Kate. “U.S. Military Emits More CO2 than Most Countries.” Grist, 12 June 2019. Businesses, the military and farms where they make a dangerous amount of food have done the most harm to our planets. Yet social media has told us plenty of times our small actions can somehow help. It’s been proven that our “recycling” wouldn’t even make a dent. 

Feels like at this point we are realizing that the problem is bigger than just one person in control. It’s like the article written by Sean Illing, Kurt Wagner. “Has Facebook Been Good for the World?” Vox, Vox, 4 Feb. 2019, saying how we will resist when people are willing to turn their attention away for convenience. People are just ignoring that fact that they are being monitored and they might feel like they have to sacrifice their privacy for entertainment. They’ll feel like that it’s the only way to keep social media so they don’t speak up. 

We ask ourselves why don’t they use it for good? The Netflix documentary social dilemma explains it well, to get us addicted, control our thoughts, and honestly overall sell us to advertisements, investors, and businesses. The end result of all this is, money. We could make it good but that’s not within our power. I agree with GQ’s “ We Can Kill Facebook” article, a personal take on it. It’s logging onto facebook and seeing how some of my family would seem so separated in beliefs, so many shared videos and popular pages, wasting their time on facebook, my intention was to see how my family was doing but I did the opposite I was just wasting my time on things that didn’t matter to me but made me curious. So I ended up deleting it again, instantly making me feel better. “I’d be better off without them. You’d be better off without them. And you know what? It can happen if we all band together and agree to kill them off.”

This is my blog