Blog Post #3

  Through reading the “SCOTUS History” article from HISTORY, I had the opportunity to learn new information about the Supreme Court’s history including how many chief justices they have had in the past, when the supreme court was established, and information on some of their cases that I had not heard of before. Though I already knew that the president appoints chief justices to serve on the supreme court and it is approved by the senate, the clear cut information provided in the article was a sufficient refresher.

    What I think is the most important take-away point when considering the Supreme Court information provided in the article was the fact that it could not always be a fair way to rule on cases if a president with certain political leanings has the opportunity to provide more chief justices during a term than his predecessor in another party. A prime example of this is former president Donald Trump’s presidency where he appointed three supreme court justices. These were Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

    Though Biden’s administration has not confirmed any Supreme Court Justices, on account that they serve for life, he still has the opportunity to if any of the justices were to pass away. The system is ultimately unjust due to the fact that not every president has the same opportunity to provide their own personal suggestions for the Supreme Court which preside over numerous highly influential cases per year. Coming down to pure chance, different presidential administrations do not have the same opportunities to invoke change if they feel the need to do so. 

    However, this is not the only way the system of the Supreme Court is unfair. It has recently become public knowledge that Justice Clarence Thomas has been receiving luxury vacations for over two decades by billionaire and staunch Republican Harlan Crow. Taking these trips and other exorbitant gifts under the table is illegal. Federal law prohibits officers of the judicial branch from accepting gifts from donors that are looking for sway or influence in court in return.

    Though the law does not quantify or specify what qualifies as a gift meant to be used as an influence tactic, Thomas and Crow are currently under the public's eye in what seems like a severe breach in federal law.

Blog Post #2

    In the videos attached, the prevalence of a lack of privacy in today’s media is discussed. Through data mining used in all social media through user-generated content, tracking malware, and deep packet inspection, people are losing their privacy.

    By using contracts of adhesion, media companies are getting users to agree to lose much of their privacy to download the app without being cognizant of the fact. This affects me on a personal level as it does for all who use social media. Things as simple as liking a certain post or hesitating even by accident on different content can lead to further investigation unbeknownst to the user.

    This information, though stored by private companies, can be sold to the government in order to cherry pick evidence for conviction of a crime. Though technology is becoming more and more intelligent by the day, AI can still make faulty predictions and assumptions upon a person in real life that can allow for disastrous consequences for that individual.

    The government should be protecting Americans from these big media conglomerates that are taking advantage of users' ignorance for their own gain. Instead, the government encourages intrusive data mining by buying the information, leading to false convictions on account of assumptions about safety concerns.

    Justifiable probable cause needs to be established for an individual before invading any privacy, and even then solid evidence needs to be prevalent before accusing someone of a crime. Our justice system is built on a foundation of “innocent until proven guilty.”

    However, when it comes to buying massive bulks of information to cast suspicion on innocent civilians, the government toes the line in breaking Americans’ fifth amendment right. As a result of this, laws need to be put in place that further restrict government involvement in buying private company’s data mining and allow there to be boundaries upon invasive data mining. 

    Overall, the implications of censorship and data mining for our society are significant. Censorship can limit freedom of expression, innovation, and access to information, which is our right as Americans. This can also impact America's growth in innovation and economic development. Data mining also raises concerns with privacy and security, along with the potential misuse of personal information. It is vital that internet users be cautious of their actions due to the fact that they can have implications that are less than desirable.

Blog Post #1

     When looking at one's individual news sources, there is a clear difference between sources that are more used for confirmation bias and sources that are used to broaden horizons. When it comes to the media I like to view, I would like to believe that I have some variety in my sources in order to make my own conclusions from the information given.

Source 1: New York Times

    The New York Times, known for being reputable and reliable, provides information on a wide variety of topics in which I can pick and choose what I want to explore. Historically known as taking a more liberal viewpoint on social and fiscal issues, the NY Times focuses on American news. 

Source 2: BBC News

    BBC News, though not an American news source, focuses on global news, providing a wide variety of topics and information. Often times, in American news sources, information provided is almost always revolving around the United States and rarely discusses other countries' politics unless it has a direct tie and impact within the United States. BBC tends to stay relatively neutral on global issues, which is useful in terms of finding information without much bias. 

Source 3: Impact

   Impact, an organization I follow for the most part on Instagram and other forms of social media, is a liberal leaning organization that exposes injustices on a global scale and provides clear sources, information, and visuals. Though social media can frequently be an unreliable source of information, Impact is a secondary source of media that provides the information gathered from other news sources, clearly cited at the end of each post. Though not necessarily the BEST source of news, I can easily corroborate Impact's information and find it to be an easy, accessible, and convenient source of news. 

Source 4: Fox News 

    Though not a source I use frequently, I use Fox News purely as a means to broaden my horizons and see issues from other perspectives. Even though I sometimes see Fox News to be significantly biased against certain topics, they still provide factual information that can be used in coming to my own conclusions about certain topics. 

Source 5: Associated Press News 

    Associated Press News (AP News), a source I found in my senior year of high school in my journalism class, is found to be a reputable source that produces information about countries all around the world. Its articles tend to be concise and straight to the point which is useful when attempting to quickly look at news in a short amount of time. 

    Overall, though I feel confident in the news sources that I use to get my information, I am completely open to finding new and even better sources of information for my continued growth. Simply staying with a single news source and not venturing to find information from different perspectives will not lead to further cognitive development and knowledge whatsoever, which is what news sources are truly about.