How Private is your Genetic Information?

    There are many companies, such as 23andMe and ancestry.com, that will allow you to send in your DNA in exchange for information about your lineage and certain traits about you. However, is this always a good idea?
    There have been occasions where these DNA databases have been hacked.  It was announced earlier this month that more than 92 million accounts from the genealogy and DNA testing service MyHeritage were found on a private server. DNA data, specifically, was not taken, but a hack in this space is still concerning.
    Surprisingly, a majority of people who submit . All of these companies make clear that they will not share your DNA with any third-party unless you explicitly consent to it, but as 23andMe data shows, the vast majority of consumers opt in — at 23andMe, more than 80 percent. Ancestry and Veritas do not provide data on the opt-in percentage.
    A spokeswoman from 23andMe said “if customers don’t consent, none of their data is shared."
    Here is a website with more information on the risks of participating in these tests.
 

On Cord Cutting

    The phenomenon of cord cutting is wide spread in our generation. The idea of paying hundreds of dollars a month for cable TV is a thing of the past. Cable is being replaced at a record rate with streaming services and, occasionally, the use of traditional antennas. 
     There are many advantages to cord cutting besides the price. The ability to have access to TV shows and movies at any time, any day is a very valuable thing. Also, there are many original series on these streaming services, such as Strangers Things on Netflix and the Mandalorian on Disney+.
    Unfortunately, in order to have access to all the content you would have to pay a  very large sum of money. With Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, ESPN and many others, we are almost returning to the systems that were in place before we started cord cutting.

The Overton Window and the Spiral of Silence

     Who determines public opinon? That is a great question, and it has a lot to do with two theories: the Overton Window and the Spiral of Silence.

     The Overton window is named after Joseph P. Overton, The theory states that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range of acceptable opinions. It has historically been described as a spectrum from "more free" to "less free" with regard to government intervention to avoid comparison with the left-right political spectrum. Recently, however, it has been dragged into the polarized world we live in.

     The Spiral of Silence is based on the idea that a social group or society in general might isolate, neglect, or exclude members due to the member's opinions. 

Individuals have a fear of isolation, and this fear of isolation consequently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions. Unfortunately, the assessment of one's social environment may not always correlate with reality. Public opinion is a process of formation, change, and reinforcement.
     Joe Lehman continued Overton’s work after his death in 2003, being the man who actually coined the term “Overton Window.” It has been told that he “weaponized” it, setting up training sessions on the concept for other right-leaning think tankers. Joe Trevino, on the Overton Window, said “Step by step, ideas that were once radical or unthinkable—homeschooling, tuition tax credits, and vouchers—have moved into normal public discourse. The conscious decision to shift the Overton Window is yielding its results.”

   Here's a link to a presentation I made relevant to this topic.

My Online Presence

   I had a question; when I google "Noah Sigsworth," what would come up, and what would it show about me? As I was about to find out, more than I thought.
   As an individual, I have a rather large online footprint. When you google my name, not only do my several social media accounts pop up (including specific posts,) but pictures of myself appear as well. There are 220 results for my name. There is a vimeo account (empty,) my YouTube channel with several videos, my twitter account, my Instagram, and my Facebook account. I do not have a personal website.
   Luckily, I have been careful over the years with my social media accounts and do not have any apparent regrettable posts or online associations. The old Facebook profiles of me do look slightly unfortunate, but that was really just how I looked back then (puberty and a haircut helped my appearance out quite a bit.)
   By viewing my online results, you could learn:

• I am a music and Strategic Communications major at High Point University, and I went to Revere High School.
• I have been a member of The Cadets drum and bugle corps, high school marching band, and several musicals.
• I have an active twitter and facebook account.
• I was a Millis Scholar my freshman year.

   Generally, none of this information is negative. I will continue to be careful with maintaining my online image.

  

Rodger's Diffusion of Innovation

   The diffusion of innovation theory is an observation on the adoption of certain technologies and ideas throughout a populous.

    Though the graph describing the phenomenon shows the "market share" for any technology to reach 100%, this is not always the case, even with technologies and ideas that we assume are universal today. Not every home in American has indoor plumbing, clean water, electricity, or the internet. Not every American believes in those who are not men or not white voting, or believes that the Earth is round. 
    An example of a recent technology on this chart could be email. In the beginning, email was only used by government agencies and large corporations where it was most useful, as it was still primitive and difficult to use. These were the innovators. Next were those who used it for more medium-sized inter-business communications, and the occasional person using the email for personal communication. These are the early adopters. The early majority are those who began using email in the early 2000s via aol.com or Hotmail, who used email rarely for specific circumstances, but happily used it for both personal and electronic communications. After that are the late majority, who likely  are younger people or those who got emails when Gmail came out- at this point, email is being used for thousands of purposes, and over a majority of the country uses it. Lastly are the laggards. These are people who will likely never use email for a variety of reasons. They may not be comfortable with computers, not have internet access, or be wary of people tracking what they send to people. It is these laggards who will prevent the market share from truly reaching 100%.

The Value of a Safety Valve in a Free Society

     In any society, one is bound to find factions of the population with different opinions on how governments, businesses, and people's personal lives should function. In a society without relatively unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and freedom of the press, it would be difficult to get those ideas out of your system without organizing a large scale coup or revolution if the government did not approve of your beliefs. This "safety valve," so to speak, of the First Amendment is on of the most valuable aspects of it.
     Society is likely to much much more stable when angry and alienated citizens are allowed to vent. It has been said that people will be less likely to resort to violence.  This freedom of unpopular or angry ideas also allows the government to monitor and follow those with radical ideas, as they do not need to explicitly hide from the government. This also allows for change that a majority of the people believe in to be heard, and prevents societies from stagnating and prevents the need for revolution. Thomas Emerson is quoted as saying, referring to a society that suppresses dissent, "by suppressing reform, censorship may transform problems into a revolution." 

Right to Record Police Officers Protected by First Amendment

        It is known that America's police have been under heavy scrutiny in recent years due to unfortunate incidents involving  many police officers and unarmed American citizens. This has caused many to begin the act of recording police officers during any type encounter, with or without their consent. Oftentimes, states have laws against recording people without their consent. But how does the First Circuit interpret this specific circumstance?

       Recently, it has been decided that this kind of behavior is protected by the first amendment. Not only has the first circut confirmed this, but also five other circuits in Massachusetts. Not only has the right to audio record police been upheld, but also the right to record video of police as well. This is essential in order to capture police misconduct. To read more, click here.

Impact of the Typewriter on American personal media and Buisness

Today, the mechanical typewriter is often considered an antique. However, the rise of this technology in the late-nineteenth century led to developments that have shaped how we live and work today.

The typewriter has evolved in very interesting ways over its lifetime. The first conception for an invention similar to the mechanical typewriter was the “writing ball,” conceived of by Danish pastor Rasmus Malling-Hansen. This was a sphere covered in types letters you could use to slowly type onto paper. This was not a very popular invention. In 1874, the “Sholes & Glidden Type Writer” becomes the model for the modern typewriter setup. This typewriter, and many other early models, were “blind” typewriters, andantes writer could not see what they were writing until it was done. In 1885, Underwood keyboards, which were non-blind, became the most popular model of keyboard. By the 1910s, the standard keyboard layout had been established, including the addition of the shift key, tab, backspace, and QUERTY typeset layout. The 1960s brought electronic word processors, and the 1990s brought the end of the manufacture of typewriter as we know them by IBM and most other major manufacturers.

The typewriter also had a profound effect on businesses around the world, the working lives of women as well as the individual's ability to create works of personal expression. Businesses were able to save significant overhead costs on printing, and therefore were able to spend more money on managerial staff. Women often picked up jobs as secretaries and typists, which were significantly better positions in working conditions and pay than factory jobs. Lastly, individuals were able to create literature in their own home for their causes, businesses, or organizations. This allowed for information created by individuals to be spread much more easily.

In short, the typewriter has had a tremendous impact on our society and paved the way for modern word processors and computers.

Game company Blizzard faces harsh Criticism over position on Hong Kong, China

    In recent months, pro-democracy protests have been raging all across Hong Kong, gaining much media attention. While most private citizens in the U.S support Hong Kong in their efforts to reach independence, this has put several international business owners in an extremely difficult position. Though, on the one hand, these American-owned businesses likely support the American values those in Hong Kong are fighting for, if the outwardly express this support, they could lose their extremely valuable business with China.

       This exact situation has played out with the gaming company Activision Blizzard. One popular professional gamer, who often streamed his games on twitch, was banned from competition after expressing support for Hong Kong during an official switch. This has caused much controversy for the company. There have been massive boycotts of the company, as well as employee walkouts in support of the gamer. Even through these boycotts, the company's stock price has held solidly and it has not lost any support from large corporations, so though the company's reputation is tarnished, its profits are not suffering.
   
       

The History and Workings of the U.S. Supreme Court

    Ever since 1789, when it was first fully established, the United States Supreme Court has had a profound impact on our country and the laws that impact it. Initially seen as insignificant to the running of our government, the decisions made in this court have created radical and widespread change in our legal system and the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    
    The court had a voice of its own since its inception. The earliest example of this was in the case Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) under the leadership of John Jay, where the Supreme Court allowed individuals to sue states (later partially overturned by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.)  The most significant early action of the Supreme Court was the establishment of the precedent of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison (1803), which gave the ability for the Supreme Court to determine whether laws were constitutional.

     The Supreme Court is intended to be the branch of government with the most distance from partisan politics. The Supreme Court justices, of which there are currently nine, are appointed, not elected, and given the position for life as a way to prevent justices from making decisions based on popularity. Thomas Jefferson said, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Many would argue that this is no longer the case, as Justices are often considered either “Conservative” or “Liberal,” with votes across party lines becoming more and more uncommon.

     Numerous decisions in the Supreme Court effect is every day. Some examples of these are Gideon v. Wainwright, which gave the right for all to have an attorney even if they can’t afford one, Miranda v. Arizona, which gives us our Miranda rights, and Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from outlawing abortion. The nine seats of the Supreme Court are extremely powerful, and will continue to determine the Consitutionality of laws and the path of our nation for the coming future.

    If you're interested in reading more about the history of the Supreme Court, click here.

Facebook takes a stand on Political Ads

       In the previous weeks, Facebook has been under some intense scrutiny over its treatment of political ads and other controversial items on the site. The company has recently stated that, though it will begin moderating news sites and commercial advertisers that spread misinformation, it will not censor or delete political ads. Facebook says it will make exceptions for political ads that specifically incite violence.

       This brings up many questions about the rights and responsibilities that private platforms have when it comes to the first amendment. Facebook has no legal obligation to allow free speech as the Bill of Rights states it; however, both Facebook and its users benefit from some amount of freedom. Most areas censored on Facebook are non-controversial, such as threats, gore, pornography, bullying, and pages relating to terrorism, but issues of ill-defined “hate speech” and misinformation often gather much media attention.

       On the topic of political ads, there are arguments on both sides for Facebook moderating or not moderating. Many claim that, if a politician is spreading misinformation, this is valuable information for the public to know. On the other hand, many also say that it is not right for politicians to mislead the public on such a large scale. Either way, this is an issue that will likely continue to be discussed for years to come. If you are interested in reading more about this topic, click here to read an article.

Music Copyright Law Previously Hailed as "Common Ground" Begins to Crumble in Court

     In October of 2018, President Trump signed the Music Modernization Act, also known as the MMA, into law, a rare case of bipartisan collaboration in a time of unfruitful attempts to govern. The bill was intended to protect songwriters and artists from not being paid due to an arbitrary expiration date- 1972, to be exact- on being properly compensated by streaming services. As President Trump was signing what has been called the “Most Important Legislation in a Generation to Help Songwriters,” Trump was flanked by artists such as Kid Rock, Mercy Me, the Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan, and the Beach Boys.

Eminem and his publisher would not agree on many of these descriptions of the MMA. On August 21st, Eight Mile filed a suit claiming that under this new law, Spotify has infringed on hundreds of Eminem's copyrights. Apparently, a loophole was found in the Music Modernization Act that has allowed the Stockholm-based music streaming service to stream Eminem's tracks without appropriately paying the publisher. This is a testament to the fact that what may seem like a win for one group of people may, in fact, be damaging to another. When crafting legislation or taking action regarding issues such as free speech and copyright, we must think of the long-reaching consequences and search for any way that a policy or law could be abused.