Final Blog Post - Relationship with Technology

The Telethon, Trojan Room Coffee Pot, YouTube and Twitch

The Telethon Set the stage for what would become an integral fixture in entertainment technology. Live non-charity events were of course more typical, but I wanted to discuss telethons specifically because I will be going in-depth on charity livestreams. These were live television events that raised funds for charities through viewer participation, combining scripted entertainment with real-time audience engagement. This format laid the groundwork for digital livestreaming models by encouraging community involvement and immediate satisfaction, that hit of persona was fresh and unique.

The Trojan Room Coffee Pot was the first webcam. Developed in 1991 at the University of Cambridge, it was used to check the fullness of a coffee pot in a break room known as the Trojan Room. It never streamed footage like we think of now-- with high frame rates-- but it was rather the rotating images of the coffee pot so researchers could check if it was full without leaving their desks. Though simple, it's a vital moment in internet history. The rise of streaming was in part due to this successful experiment.

The Trojan Room Coffee Pot of lore.

YouTube, launched in 2005, essentially created the streaming of video content that we have now. It revolutionized content creation. Rather, the phrase 'content creation' was popularized by creators on the platform. By enabling anyone with a camera and internet connection to share videos with a global audience, YouTube democratized the landscape. Now it fosters the influencer economy and niche communities. Its intuitive, shifting algorithms and monetization systems fundamentally reshaped entertainment.

Then Twitch, around a decade later in 2011 extended this democratization into live-focused content. Though its largest reach is through gaming, it pulls communities from all professions and hobbies. Twitch set a new standard for digital community-building with the establishment of the culture of close chat interaction. YouTube and Twitch transformed how content is created, shared, and received.

Digital Currency

No, not bitcoin or crypto or whatever alternative money trend will be popular in the next five years. 

Set up in your mind the exchange of two equivalent values: entertainment for currency. Currency being time, money, thoughts, etc. Everything that you do online turns into currency that is bought with entertainment.

Digital spaces where the line blurs between off and online foster a strong sense of community and belonging. Audiences beg for that reality and life, the closeness of a person as if they were next to them. 

What I mentioned before, about persona? That is what content aims to sell now.

Rather than selling a show or information, streaming content is largely persona-based. Selling yourself. No example is without exception. There is always an alternative-- niche communities exist solely for those who seek it out. But the problem is that these large communities dominate the market so heavily. And it's entirely for profit. Entertainment for profit isn't abnormal, but what's considered 'entertainment' is what I take issue with. People, on both sides (creator and audience), spend hours every day absorbed online.

They sit and exist only in the recesses of online life, without consciousness to recognize they even spend that much time on videos or lives. This graph elucidates my point clearly.

It's an incredibly unhealthy thing, to shut the world out. Those who are content creators try to eat up and maximize your time as much as they can. Not in a malicious way, but the algorithms that give them their reach promote this cannibalistic lifestyle. 

I often put video essays, educational lives, or gameplay in the background of my study sessions. When I don't have friends to work with, the video acts as another presence. I watch videos about my interests for fun. But I am very conscious of how much time I spend online, and I never let myself get dragged into the reality of streaming.

For a year or so when I entered highschool, I was having some trouble interacting with the real world due to my physical condition and medical problems. So instead of facing it, I sunk into the surreal internet. It took over all of my free time, and I grew reliant on it. I'm so concerned about the psychology and effects of streaming because it took a portion of my life that I will never get back. It's casual fun, but when you have nothing else, it may assimilate the self into the mess of persona that exists only online.

Content Creators Becoming Philanthropists

Though we're mostly discussing the ramifications of streaming, and that happens to sound (and be) negative, there is great social contributions that come from streaming.

Community-building within the social media and digital content creation fields has led to great positives for the audience's mental state. At healthy levels of interaction, one can actively be engaged with likeminded people and feel a sense of fulfillment in how they interact with the creator and their content. This principle of bonding between the screen is particularly relevant in the modern digital age, where social media platforms are tailored for the exchange of currency. This time, it happens to be actual dollars.

Streams with donations are the basis and a key part of a creator's revenue, but they can give it back. Charity streams are a type of live that is exactly how it sounds-- the audience gives money to the content creator, and they deliver those donations to charity funds.

These events highlight the reciprocal relationship between creator and audience, where expression, support, and shared purpose combine in a melting pot for a truly good cause. Within this framework, it supports not only the creator’s reputation but also the collective population.

Content Currency

A LAN party is a gathering with the intent to play video games together. It shows the ripe potential for community.

As negative as I was for the Digital Currency section, I truly believe that there is no measure for good or bad in the age of the internet. The colonization of headspace that companies, advertisers, the government and content creators engage in is unhealthy. They vy for our attention. That is at direct odds with the money that is raised in purity and for relief.

Currency flows richly through technology, and it is up to the singular person to decide what they will balance their life with. Everyone is trying to take your attention, which means it's important. The choice to take a break, to watch, to support isn't a flimsy choice, a menial one like cereal or an apple for breakfast. Be intelligent and thoughtful when interacting online, because every choice matters. The part of the human consciousness that lives online is degraded by video constantly played in the background, but enriched by deliberate quiet. Choose to engage, but be aware of yourself.

Sources

Average daily time spent using the internet by 3rd quarter 2024, by age and gender

Livestreams are the new telethons, and they’re raising millions for charities

Streamlabs Charity

Gamers Raised Millions for Charity in 2019: Meet Three Leading the Way

I left the ad industry because our use of data tracking terrified me

Digital Barbarism: The New Colonization of theMind

Blog Post 03 - Eight Values of Free Expression

Individual Self-Fulfillment -- Self Actualization

In the context of media law, self-actualization looks a little different from what a psychologist or sociologist would site it as. These fields would think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and societal pressure to force change onto the developing mental state. It states the layers are hit as a person grows, though they may never reach the later stages. It's more of a basis theory that branches into others, what I would consider to be a way of understanding the world. People grow and develop, they must challenge themselves to achieve self-actualization. Sociologically, this process will be helped or hindered by those surrounding you. This is certainly an aspect of the concept I will use to discuss free speech, but it doesn't encapsulate the missing piece-- 

--my interpretation with this lens of self actualization is finding, creating and building value in the self-- the ability to create coherent thoughts of one's own. This then applies to moving in the world as a person who can think for themselves and protect their own liberty. A large part of that is having the freedom to be able to speak, to be able to improve. If society was as rigid as some people want, where you can make no mistakes or say a 'wrong' thing, self actualization would be an impossibility. The development of internal character is based upon making mistakes and growing from that.

Without mistakes, without wrongdoing, there is no growth. If you exist in an echochamber where you only hear a singular perspective that insists upon its 'correctness' then you will never realize that there are other voices outside of that tunnel.

Personal identity in the current era can feel like an impossibility. We discussed in class how some European countries, Germany in particular, are taking actions that restrict 'harmful or offensive language'. Police are being mobilized from tweets. Looking deeper into this, it's not a single situation that escalated. It's a repeated effort that states, not implies, that free speech is secondary to saving people from even the idea of offense. Self actualization continues in its processes by challenge. As I said before, you can't live in a happy little bubble that sings all of your predisposed beliefs back at you. To actualize is to be challenged in mind, body and soul. The government doesn't exist to protect people from having their feelings hurt. Which implies that this stunt is instead indicative of something else.

The freedom to speak includes the offensive content that is trying to be banned. Whether it hurts people's feelings is irrelevant when considering the fact it is speech, not action nor incitement. That slippery slope that the European governments are teetering on is incredibly dangerous. What defines the wrong words? Would there be a list of banned words that no one can say? Things that affect society further, like being unable to act in certain ways. This discussion exists for the sole purpose of gaining control over the population. And it's not just Europe. All over the world, people are being cut off from speaking their truth, learning about new perspectives and are being put in echochambers intentionally. Controlled speech, or rather restrictive control is the bane of liberty and freedom itself. 

Sources

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/c-edwin-baker/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383241976_Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs

https://www.thefire.org/news/60-minutes-and-vice-president-vance-put-europes-worrying-speech-restrictions-spotlight

Blog Post 02 - The Founding Era

I wasn't aware of just how much work the judges and their teams undertake. Nor had I thought of the petitions for certiorari that add so much more work that the first video mentions. The second video's backing shows just how busy it is, especially with the concerns of written content. Now, we have phones that release information to the public as soon as it is spoken through live streaming, but when that technology didn't exist, communication had to be headed by dedicated employees. It's not something that I had thought consciously, but it's a bit surprising that each judge's interpretation of the constitution is different from their peers. With the conclusions that have come from split opinions, judges that denounce a ruling while the people they work alongside preach the opposite, there is a distinctly human aspect to the Supreme Court that I had completely brushed aside. My thought before watching this was the Supreme Court is a cog in the machinations of the government, a vital piece. Rather, it's a collection of wires and wheels. Hearing about the judge's personal philosophy, their interpretation that differ wildly from the person right next to them is actually quite reassuring.

--"...that's just a difference in interpretive philosophy."

"...there's no disagreement on what's most fundamental in what we're trying to do."--

Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens discuss the way in which they work together whilst maintaining their personal views. It reminds me very much of the link-chain analogy. A system must be looped together, tightly linked.

The change and flux that is necessary for a judicial system, or any governmental system is its most important feature. There is constant pressure from the people, from inside conflict and from the weight of deciding the fate of others gives the need for the Supreme Court to be in a state of consistent change. 'The people' had an absence of black people and women, among others. As social change impacted with the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments to the Constitution, the judicial system and the people who make it up must interpret the law and their opinions in flux.