Posts

Independant "Fact-Checkers"

I'm going to preface this blog post by stating this is opinion .  In the recent years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of "fact-checkers," such as Politifact, Snopes, and others. While one may think that this increase would be a good thing, I personally do not believe it is. Have we gotten to an age where people lack enough common sense to check facts themselves? It surely seems that way.   This doesn't even mention another issue with these so called "fact-checking" websites, cherry picking of facts. While they claim to be neutral and unbiased, I personally no one can be fully unbiased. Politifact itself has a left-leaning bias, in fact, an article in US News titled "Whose Fact Checking Fact Checkers," written by Peter Ross, showed the several fact checkers checked more Republicans than Democrats.I don't care whichever way things skew, any skew is bad when you are trying to be a neutral fact-checker.    Then things get really ridic

Online and Social Media Presence

Having a presence on the internet now is all but inevitable these days, with social media and video streaming services being incredibly common. You can't even use most smartphones without creating an account with Google (for Android), Apple (for any of their devices), or even Microsoft (for Windows 10, although you can bypass the account requirement.) All those accounts track your usage, browsing habits, stuff you purchase online and usually sell the data or use the data serve you targeted ads. I manage to mitigate some of the tracking, for example, I use an ad blocker (uBlock Origin) on my browsers. Additionally, I have a Pi-hole setup on my home network, which utilizes DNS to redirect known ad and tracking links to a non-existent IP address, blocking them before they even reach my computer (you can read more about that here ). I might write a separate article about DNS-based ad blocking later. Also, I use a program called Windows 10 Debloater to disable most of the telemetry Micr

Net Neutrality

Image
Net neutrality, what does it mean, how does it affect you? Simply speaking, net neutrality is a policy that means that Internet Service Providers (like Spectrum, AT&T, etc) have to treat all data the same, and cannot throttle (slow down), charge more, or block any specific online content. This article from Wired covers the basic of net neutrality and its history really well.  For example, if there is no net neutrality, you want to access Netflix but you can't, because your internet plan is only on the "basic plan" and you need to pay an extra $50 dollars a month for the "Video Plus plan," without net neutrality this is allowed. As you can see, net neutrality, or the lack thereof, affects virtually everyone that has access to the internet. Courtesy of TNM However, this is the least sinister thing an ISP can do if there is no net neutrality. Let's say your ISP has been involved in some pretty dodgy or even borderline illegal things, you go to read an arti

Marketplace of Ideas and Social Media and the Internet

The "Marketplace of Ideas" states that " when truth and falsehood are allowed to freely grapple, truth will win out. And the grappling makes the truth even stronger. " However, when it comes to modern social media, it seems that finding the truth through all the false information is getting even harder. Even with so called "fact checkers" the truth can sometimes be hard to find, not to mention that the so called "fact checkers" have been shown to have biases in their reporting. This article brings up a great point, who fact checks the fact checkers? Social media platforms themselves have been "fact checking" posts as well, with a tweet from President Trump about mail-in ballots being labeled "misleading," the worst part being that the so called "fact checking" website that people were referred to was actually incorrect in their fact checking. In fact, a few days ago the State of New Jersey announced several voter fr

Diffusion of Innovations Theory

I think one of the most major innovations that was heavily subject to the Diffusion of Innovations Theory was the mobile phone. Initially, "mobile" phones were connected to cars and costed a lot of money. However, in 1973, Motorola released the first truly mobile phone prototype. The prototype, and the consumer models based on it, that came out a whole 10 years later, in 1983, had 30-minute call time but a 10 hour charge time. Even with these specifications, there were many early adopters, with people on wait-lists for the “mobile” phones. Cell phones took several years to become common, even though there were many early adopters, as the barrier to entry was very high due to cost and limited locations. Eventually, as with virtually all technologies, cell phones became smaller, more affordable, and overall better. I would say that the early majority and late adopters for cell phones are kind of blurred together. It's quite obvious why cell phones caught on, the abili

The Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED)

Image
The CED You have probably never heard of the Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED), but this technology was way ahead of its time, at least at the time of its initial invention. Unfortunately, corporate politics and scientists themselves delayed the launch to the point that it was obsolete at the time of release, as it was competing with VCR. I was inspired to write about the CED due to a series of YouTube videos by Technology Connections about the topic. The CED was an analog video format inspired by vinyl records. Unlike modern discs that are read by a laser, the CED uses a stylus, similar to the vinyl records previously mentioned. The CED was started by RCA in 1964 by a group of four scientists. Eventually, it became named the "SelectaVision," which was also, confusingly, used as a name for a few other RCA products. The CED went through several iterations before a PVC-Carbon blend (carbon added to make the disc conductive.) One big advantage of the CED was that the discs coul

Antiwar Voices

When was the last time you've seen an "antiwar" voice in the main stream media? If not directly "antiwar," what about anti-interventionists? It seems that you have to go out of your way to find media that expresses a more "antiwar" bias. I think the main point is that since the end of WWII, the US has become the "world police." Before WWII, the US was fairly isolationist , it joined both WWI and WWII a few years after both started. WWII solidified the US as a "world power." This caused society to shift in their views, simply making the antiwar viewpoint much less common. The US became involved in many wars since then, such as the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Gulf Wars, and a few other wars. These wars and other US interventions have made it “counter-culture” to be against war. One news website, The American Conservative , is a Right-leaning news organization, whose authors mainly oppose American interventionism. The "