Blog 8: Voices of Antiwar

 

The United States' foreign policy and military decisions are significantly influenced by the opinions of its citizens. This democratic principle ensures that the government remains accountable to the people. However, when the U.S. engages in military operations around the world, these decisions often face objections from various segments of society, which are voiced in different media outlets. Despite this, mainstream media frequently ignores such objections, leading alternative sources like ANTIWAR.COM to cover the ethical, economic, and political issues associated with U.S. war efforts.

In today's media landscape, large corporations that benefit from war have a vested interest in promoting propaganda and biased information that aligns with their objectives. These companies exert considerable influence over the news and information that most Americans consume. Social media platforms, which are increasingly the primary source of news for many people, are controlled by these powerful entities. For instance, Facebook has gained notoriety for promoting biased content to shape public opinion in ways that serve its interests. This pervasive bias in media not only skews public perception but also impacts the reporting on U.S. military actions globally.

                             

The situation is further complicated by the fact that if mainstream media platforms benefit from war efforts or adhere to a particular agenda, they are likely to suppress alternative viewpoints. This deliberate omission of diverse perspectives prevents a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. Consequently, the American public is often presented with a one-sided narrative that supports continued military engagement.

Moreover, the war in Afghanistan, which was highly unpopular, particularly during the Obama administration, is a case in point. Despite widespread disapproval, many Americans remain sensitive to the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent war on terror led by Al Qaeda. The annual remembrance of 9/11 and its profound traumatic impact on the national psyche make it challenging to criticize efforts aimed at combating terrorism. As a result, opinions opposing such efforts are often suppressed or under-reported in the media, for fear of backlash and public disapproval.

 

This complex interplay of corporate interests, media bias, and public sentiment underscores the challenges in ensuring transparent and accountable governance in the realm of foreign policy and military decision-making. The dominance of profit-driven media narratives over genuine public discourse raises critical questions about the integrity of information that shapes public opinion and policy decisions. Many platforms like The American Conservative allows groups to express their opinions based on their beliefs and in support of specific policies, political groups, and for profit. In some ways, this is the basis of freedom of speech in America. Since 2002, this magazine has released and has influenced many major decisions in American history, including voting outcomes in major elections. To foster a more informed and engaged citizenry, it is essential to promote diverse media sources and encourage critical examination of the information presented to the public.

Blog 7: EOTO 2

In today's digital era, political influencers hold a lot of authority over public opinion and policy making.  There are positive and negative aspects of this level of influence.  On the one hand they can amplify important voices, raise awareness, and boost civic engagement; but they can also spread misinformation, increase polarization, and hurt democratic processes.  Sifting through all of the opinions and information can be overwhelming, to say the least.

On the bright side, political influencers can drive change by highlighting the voices of marginalized groups and advocating for social justice.  They bring attention to critical issues like climate change, racial inequity, and human rights abuse which sparks public discussion and mobilizes communities.  For example, Greta Thunberg has brought global attention to environmental sustainability, inspiring many to join climate strikes and push for policy changes.  She is a Swedish environmental activist who has been influencing change since persuading her family to make lifestyle changes to decrease their carbon footprint at the age of fifteen.  Her work is a great example of people's ability to affect change at any age.

Moreover, political influencers are key in getting young people more involved in politics.  Using social media and digital tools, they make politics more accessible and relatable to youth, encouraging participation in elections, protests, and grassroots movements.  Platforms like TikTok and Instagram are now hubs for political discussions and allow allow influencers to share educational content, debunk myths, and promote voter registration.  This increased engagement helps create a more informed and empowered citizenry that is crucial for any democracy.

 

Political influencers also have the power to spread misinformation and deepen social divides.  In a world of echo chambers, people are often exposed to biased information that reinforces their existing beliefs leading to polarization.  Influencers contribute to this by sharing sensationalized or misleading content to please their audience, rather than promoting balanced and fact-based discussions.  We see examples of negative influence increase during elections - evident now more than ever as our country prepares to elect the 47th President of the United States of America.

Additionally, the rise of the influencer culture has blurred the lines between entertainment and politics, turning social issues into commodities for personal gain.  Some influencers focus on sensationalism over substance, using clickbait and provocative rhetoric to attract attention and grow their following.  This trivializes complex political issues and distracts from genuine advocacy, undermining the credibility of the activist community.

Furthermore, the unchecked influence of political influencers can weaken democratic processes and institutions.  When influencers prioritize partisanship over impartiality, they can erode public trust in the media and electoral systems.  Influence-driven misinformation campaigns, like those spreading false election narratives or conspiracy theories can create doubt and division that ultimately undermines the legitimacy of democratic governance.  Many fail to recognize the impact of influencers on families and communities.  Having faith in a political candidate based on unethical campaign methods can create negate outcomes financially, socially, educationally, etc.  For example, there is a great deal of conversation around the Project 2025 policy proposals related to its impact on different groups of people.  It is important for citizens to research and follow their beliefs and values when deciding who they will support.

In conclusion, I see the dual nature of political influencers.  They can drive positive change and boost civic engagement, but they also pose risks to democratic values and societal cohesion.  As consumers of digital content, it's crucial to critically evaluate the information we encounter, scrutinize the motives of influencers, and advocate for transparent and responsible communication.  Only by holding political influencers accountable can we harness their potential for good while minimizing their negative impacts on society.

Blog 6: Diffusion of Innovation Theory & Social Media

Facebook is one of the world's most popular social media platforms. It was launched in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg and quickly outshined MySpace, another popular social media network at the time. By 2008, Facebook had become the dominant platform; however, its popularity has declined over the years due to the introduction of other major social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly known as Twitter).

The Diffusion of Innovation Theory, popularized by Everett Rogers in his 1962 book, can explain Facebook's growth and decline over the years. This theory explains how ideas and innovations spread over time within social systems. According to Rogers, the process of spreading ideas and innovations is called diffusion. The dissemination of these ideas and innovations to adopters requires social capital, time, and effective communication channels.

Rogers categorizes adopters into different groups based on how quickly they embrace new ideas or innovations. The first group is the innovators, who devise the ideas or innovations. Next are the early adopters, who accept the ideas or innovations early on. The early majority follows, consisting of more people who adopt the ideas or  innovations after seeing them accepted by the early adopters. The late majority takes their time to embrace the new ideas or innovations, and finally, the laggards are the last to accept them.

Facebook's global spread can be illustrated through Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory. Facebook attracted many early adopters, reaching 1 million users within its first year. This number steadily increased over the years, making Facebook the most used social media platform by 2013. From 2005 to 2013, the number of monthly users grew from 6 million to 1.23 billion. By the end of 2021, Facebook had 2.93 billion users.

Several factors contributed to Facebook's success in surpassing other popular social media platforms like LiveJournal, Friendster, and MySpace. Facebook capitalized on the wave of social networking already created by its predecessors, benefiting from the increased availability of broadband and internet penetration. The platform's creators also learned from the mistakes of others, such as avoiding rapid expansion and addressing underlying technological issues. Additionally, Facebook's interface was clean and non-customizable, which appealed to many users. The platform was marketed to specific segments, starting with high school and college students and later expanding to corporate employees. Regular innovations, such as adding new tools and technologies, also helped attract early majority users.

The late adoption of Facebook was influenced by age restrictions and the presence of other popular social networks. Initially, Facebook restricted users based on age, allowing only those 18 and older to join. This criteria was later reduced to 13 years. These age restrictions, along with the availability of other social media platforms, caused many people to delay using Facebook. Some individuals were also hesitant to join due to perceived security issues, inappropriate content, lack of interest, perceived uselessness, lack of control, peer influence, privacy concerns, and cultural or religious beliefs.

Despite these challenges, Facebook managed to spread its usage worldwide. While the platform offers many benefits, such as helping users stay in touch with family and friends, sharing pictures and videos, and accessing helpful information, it is not as popular with today's young adults. Many prefer platforms like Instagram and SnapChat. Facebook's evolution and user base changes reflect the broader trends in social media adoption and usage over time.