# data[].attributes.body
The term public opinion means when the public forms their own beliefs or views on a subject, topic event, etc. Public opinion can be seen a lot in the 21st century, with how accessible media is to where really anyone can post whatever is on their mind. This can also be messy due to hate and disagreements, as well as I feel that this also can cause misinformation to be spread at times.

# data[].attributes.body
An example of this that I can think of that relates to public opinion is protests. Usually when people are protesting, they are doing so because they are standing up for what they believe in. I just think that this way is a little more intense and attention getting, which can often times be a good thing for the right cause. As stated before in the definition, this could also lead to issues, as most of the public do not agree on the same things, and many protests end up with people harmed due to the disagreements.

# data[].attributes.body
I just thought this was a funny meme to go along with it:) Very true though, this as well as parents/ people saying "maybe if you weren't on your phone so much"

# data[].attributes.headline
5/14 Unit 8 chapter 11 concept: Authoritarian theory 

# data[].attributes.subject
5/14 Unit 8 chapter 11 concept: Authoritarian theory 

# data[].attributes.body
The Authoritarian theory is essentially that the press is a servant and serves the government. Now this is clearly very problematic, and very dangerous for the citizens of the countries and places that still have this in place. I was curious to see how many countries still used the Authoritarian government, and was surprised that 20 countries are still having to deal with this. I just think that it is really sad for a government to need to have that much control over it's people. I didn't know prior to reading in the textbook that the governments only gave power to certain printers. I just wonder how the public in these countries is able to trust anything they are told/read or even feel safe.

# data[].attributes.headline
5/14 Unit 8 chapter 14 concept: actual malice 

# data[].attributes.subject
5/14 Unit 8 chapter 14 concept: actual malice 

# data[].attributes.body
Actual malice is when someone publishes or spreads content about an individual that they know is false, or with no care to know if it is true or not. I feel that this happens a lot now with celebrities especially. There is always a new scandal that is put out, and rumors that are started about so many influencers and celebrities each week. If a celebrity was the victim of this, then they could sue the individual that spread the lies.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was really interesting to be because why are these companies advertising?? The first thing I thought was interesting was that the biggest spender on Facebook ads in the oil industry was Exxon, the same company with the oil spill that happened decades go. That was very interesting to me. Another thing that stuck out is just why? With the Willow project being passed, we are going to ruin our planet while digging for oil.... so why are these companies spending so much money to try and change our minds? It is really just crazy to me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Oil spent $10 million on Facebook ads — to sell what, exactly?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A report found that spending peaked when politicians were poised to act on climate.

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing I wanted to say is that I honestly think that its really disgusting and sad that we live in a world were this is a common occurrence. I also think that its even more sad that it took this long for it to become a criminal offense, as I have been seeing this happen to people on the internet and even people that I know since I was in 7th grade. Which is really really sad that girls in my middle school had to go through this, as it can be very damaging to your mental health, especially that young. Reading about what men have done to the women who spoke up in the article or sadly the women who have sadly taken their own life because of this makes me sick to my stomach. I just really hope that in the future, hopefully sooner than later, that this will never have to be a problem anymore due to the consequences. It also upsets me that only 48 states have this law in place, as women in all states, even all over the world should be protected by this and never have to go through it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rather than a patchwork of state laws, revenge porn would be best regulated-and curtailed-by a uniform federal law, particularly the law actively being considered in the reauthorization to the Violence Against Women Act.

Estimates suggest 10 million Americans have been the victim of revenge porn. (Creative Commons)

At long last, Congress is on the verge of passing the first federal law to criminalize revenge porn.

The new law, which has been added as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), would prohibit the knowing or reckless distribution of "intimate visual depictions" of non-consenting subjects. The measure passed a vote in the House in March and was advanced to the Senate in late July.

If passed and signed into law, offenders would face up to two years in prison "for each victim depicted." Although many states have already passed their own laws criminalizing the non-consensual distribution of intimate content, a uniform federal law is best suited to curtail this despicable act.

Sharing intimate content with romantic partners is now the norm. Surveys show that up to 60 percent of U.S. adults have taken a nude photo or video of themselves and shared it with someone else. In fact, it is estimated that Americans send 20 intimate photos every second. Although "sending nudes" is now a normative aspect of romantic life in the 21st century, the illicit distribution of this type of intimate content can be truly devastating, especially for women, who are disproportionately affected by this type of crime.

Consider the case of Damilya Jossipalenya, a 21 year-old woman who jumped to her death from the window of her apartment after her ex-boyfriend sent a video of her performing a sex act on him to a group of friends, and also threatened to forward it to her family members. Annmarie Chiarini, as detailed in her highly-publicized article, attempted suicide after an ex-boyfriend vowed to "destroy her" and posted her nude photos and videos for sale on eBay and also sent them to her boss, her son's kindergarten teacher, and numerous friends.

As an attorney pursuing cases of sexual assault and harassment, I have personally counseled clients who have been affected by the nonconsensual release of sexual content online. Although no two offenses are perfectly alike, the trauma I have observed from these victims is similar to those who have experienced real-life sexual assaults. Unsurprisingly (but disconcertingly), results from a survey organized by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative showed that 93 percent of revenge porn victims have suffered significant emotional distress and 41 percent have contemplated suicide.

Within the last ten years, 46 states have passed their own laws criminalizing the nonconsensual sharing of sexual content online. (Chiarini, as mentioned above, was highly influential in advocating for her state of Maryland to pass its law in 2014). While the intent of state legislators to criminalize revenge porn has been good, the actual pragmatic effects leave much to be desired. In reality, a very confusing hodgepodge of statutes, many of them with clear loopholes, has resulted.

For example, several states' revenge porn laws require that the offender explicitly intend to cause the victim "serious emotional distress." This leaves open the possible defense that an offender distributed the intimate content simply for their own sense of gratification.

Other states exclude "interactive computer service providers" (i.e. websites or forums) from criminal liability. While the law generally affords immunity to these platforms under the theory that they should not be liable for the content posted by their users ( see e.g., the infamous Section 230 of the CDA), it must be recognized that many websites exist for the sole purpose of posting revenge porn and actively solicit users to contribute. Under many state laws, the owners and operators of these nefarious platforms are immune from prosecution.

Many state laws also fail to address jurisdiction, which can leave state authorities powerless if an offender proves that a photo was taken out-of-state or the victim does not live within the state.

Different states also impose wildly different penalties for revenge porn offenders. Missouri's law classifies the crime as a felony offense and includes a potential seven-year prison sentence. By contrast, some states, such as California, treat the crime as only a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of just six months in prison (the reality being that most misdemeanors result in only probation). Most glaringly, four states (Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina and Wyoming) still haven't prohibited revenge porn at all.

Rather than a patchwork of state laws, revenge porn would be best regulated (and curtailed) by a uniform federal law, particularly the law actively being considered in the reauthorization to VAWA. Credit to the drafters, the proposed law avoids common loopholes by only requiring that an offender knowingly or recklessly distribute intimate content without consent; it is not required that an offender explicitly intend to cause a victim emotional distress.

Website owners and operators can also face criminal liability if they "intentionally solicit, or knowingly and predominantly distribute" revenge porn. This strikes a fair balance between shielding most websites from liability while bringing to justice those that exist for the purpose of soliciting or disseminating revenge porn.

Additionally, federal law applies throughout the nation, which avoids the pesky issue of jurisdiction in online communications that are frequently interstate. The proposed law even allows for "extraterritorial federal jurisdiction," which means that federal authorities can actually prosecute offenders who post revenge porn while outside the United States (a common occurrence), so long as the offender or victim is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

Of course, the proposed law has its opponents, among which two main critiques have surfaced. First, some argue that broad revenge porn laws run afoul of the First Amendment and could prevent journalists from publishing newsworthy content about politicians (such as former Representatives Anthony Weiner and Katie Hill.) Regardless of the ethics behind this argument, it is moot: The proposed federal law does not apply to any content that "touches upon a matter of public concern."

Second, others have questioned whether a new federal law would actually change the existing legal landscape. After all, state laws already exist, and federal authorities would need to devote precious time and effort to actually prosecute such cases. This argument fails to recognize the important deterrent effect of criminal laws. As any first-year law student comes to learn, deterrence is one of the chief rationales of punishment in our legal system. Ever heard the expression: "Don't make a federal case out of it?" Federal authorities have more power, more resources, and statistically more success in prosecuting crimes. The mere fear of a potential federal charge might outweigh the insidious satisfaction a would-be offender stands to gain from posting revenge porn.

Overall, estimates suggest 10 million Americans have been the victim of revenge porn. It is no longer a fringe issue. Passing a federal law to criminalize revenge porn would aid in prosecuting offenders and those who facilitate them, serve to deter future offenses, and signal to victims that we are finally taking this abhorrent crime seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Criminalizing "Revenge Porn" Could Save Women's Lives - Ms. Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At long last, Congress is on the verge of passing the first federal law to criminalize revenge porn. The new law, which has been added as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), would prohibit the knowing or reckless distribution of "intimate visual depictions" of non-consenting subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
Product placement is when a company pays an influencer, show, movie, or even a game to promote their products. Mostly these are seen in television shows and influencer videos. In product placement media, sometimes it is more obvious than others, with the product actually getting talked about, or the product just being seen on the set. This strategy is a way to sneakily try to get you interested in their product, without it being an actual commercial or ad.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a perfect example of not so subtle product placement. The viewers can clearly understand that the card he is paying with is a product placement for the company Chime. I think there are definitely better ways to show the product, for example they could have just zoomed in on the card while the waitress was ringing it up or something that didn't involve them saying the actual company. With the character actually saying "here's my Chime card" it is so obvious that its product placement, it makes the scene look artificial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
@king_sheim
Heres my chime card <3 #riverdale
♬ original sound - Celeste Felsheim

# data[].attributes.body
Another example of product placement in television is the Vitamin Water White party in Gossip Girl. This was a whole event dedicated to Vitamin water, so it is pretty obvious that it's product placement. I feel that this one wasn't as artificial feeling as the Chime card in Riverdale, just because it fits into the story more in Gossip Girl. This event was more of a high end event, which makes sense since most of the main characters come from high class families with money. This party is also an event where everyone must wear white, which makes it look more elegant and rich.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/30 Unit 7 chapter 12 concept:  subliminal advertising

# data[].attributes.subject
4/30 Unit 7 chapter 12 concept:  subliminal advertising

# data[].attributes.body
Subliminal advertising is when a company embeds a message deep in the advertisement that is usually difficult for the audience to perceive. The example given in the book about Jim Vicary and the popcorn and cola sales was really interesting to see, because even if it is not proven to be effective, in my opinion I think it is really persuasive in advertisement. I believe that when a company does subliminal advertising it is cool that they have the creative mind to be able to try and hide this message in the ad, and that sets them apart from others. An example of subliminal advertisement is the Baskin Robbins logo. Baskin Robbins is known to have 31 flavors, and if you look closely at the logo, you will see the number 31 within the name.

# data[].attributes.headline
5/30 Unit 7 chapter 13 concept: Three major functions of PR 

# data[].attributes.subject
5/30 Unit 7 chapter 13 concept: Three major functions of PR 

# data[].attributes.body
I chose the three major functions of public relations to talk about because I feel that they are very essential. The first function is informing, which is obviously a big role in PR. Informing is important because there are so many people that want to hear what us going on, but it is also very important to keep opinions out of the information being told. This is to avoid any bias on the subject and can let people decide their own opinion freely. The next function is persuading, which can be tricky. Persuading is also very key and important because of you can't get anyone interested in the product or whatever is being talked about, then the product won't sell. I feel that now a lot of persuading is done using celebrities to vouch for the brand, which makes more people want to buy it. The last function is integrating, which means bringing publics together with a shared set goals or actions. Integrating with other companies that share the same goal as your own is important because the more you advertise whatever you are trying to sell/get out there, the more people will want to buy.

# data[].attributes.body
The term 'goes viral' or 'going viral' is something that is heard a lot in modern day. This is when media or social content reaches a large audience and is typically reposted and shared. With apps like TikTok and Instagram, in 2023 videos, posts, and people are going viral every single day. The first time I originally heard this was when Youtube was really the main form of media consumption, and it wasn't as common for videos to go viral then as it is now. I think this is because there are so many more people on these websites pushing out more and more content each day. I also think that apps like TikTok aid in videos going viral more because it is a easier platform to watch on, and Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube have all added features with short videos like TikTok.

# data[].attributes.body
Another example of something going viral is the pink sauce. This sauce went viral after a creator posted herself using it on chicken and fries, and it took the internet by storm. Eventually, people wanted to try this sauce, so the creator, Chef Pii created a website that allowed people to purchase the sauce. Once people started receiving the product, all hell broke loose. Customers were complaining that the colors were different in every bottle, the sauce came in plastic bottles that came damaged a lot of the time, there was missing information in the ingredients list, the product said to contain milk but had no refrigeration instructions, and it was not regulated by the FDA. This clearly caused a lot of backlash on the brand, and the media tore the creator apart. This did not stop her, and she has now partnered with another company, gotten the sauce approved by the FDA, and is on shelves in Walmart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last year had memorable internet food scandals. There was alarm at Bon Appétit's Brad Leone allegedly putting viewers at risk of botulism with the way he cooked on his YouTube series It's Alive. People blamed severe illnesses and emergency surgeries on the meal kit brand Daily Harvest's lentil and leek crumbles. And then there was TikTok's " Pink Sauce."

Invented by a Miami entrepreneur who goes by Chef Pii (pronounced "pea"), Pink Sauce combined the novelty of a colorful condiment and influencer aesthetic to capture the imagination of online foodies. In TikToks, the pink-haired chef slathered the tangy-sweet sauce on fries and chicken - and as the videos blew up in the summer of 2022, orders for $20 bottles of Pink Sauce came rolling in.

That's how the trouble began.

"It wasn't like I was making concoctions to kill people, realistically," Chef Pii tells Rolling Stone. "However, it was too much for me, as a small business. As a person with three employees, it was just a lot."

Chef Pii had been prepared to fulfill, at most, a "few hundred" orders. As she went viral, however, orders came in by the thousands. Delays in shipping were the least of her headaches. Customers fumed that the plastic Pink Sauce bottles had been smashed or ruptured in the mail. Then people started seeing misprints and errors on the ingredient label. Most worrying, one of the ingredients was milk - yet there were no instructions to refrigerate the sauce, nor was it clear that the sauce could be safely shipped unrefrigerated. These problems compounded into a major backlash against Chef Pii, who tried to address concerns live on TikTok, only to face a barrage of mockery from users who claimed she'd never even heard of the Food and Drug Administration.

"I was a nursing student, you know?" Chef Pii says. "I know what the FDA is. However, food products aren't FDA-approved, they are FDA-regulated - they go under an FDA standard." She adds that her live video feed was cut off in a way that allowed others to paint her as uninformed. In a statement to Rolling Stone, the FDA confirms that foods, "in general, are not subject to pre-market approval," though "food producers are required to follow Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) to help ensure the safety of food."

Either way, the reputational damage was done, and it seemed as if Pink Sauce would vanish into obscurity like so many other TikTok trends. But Chef Pii found a savior in Dave's Gourmet, the 30-year-old speciality food company known for Dave's Insanity Sauce, once distinguished as the world's hottest. Months after she partnered with Dave's to reformulate Pink Sauce, change the packaging and produce it in a major manufacturing facility, Chef Pii's product is available on the Dave's website, and will be sold in more than 4,000 U.S. Walmart locations through this summer - the one-year anniversary of Chef Pii's near-downfall.

"I'm ready for chapter 2," reads the caption on a recent video of Chef Pii grabbing the sauce from a Walmart shelf.

Ironically, it was the controversy that got the attention of Dave's Gourmet.

"We watch TikTok and [Instagram] closely," says David Neuman, who has been president of the company since 2021. He explains that Chef Pii's predicament "immediately sparked a call to action in us - to lend a helping hand as an industry stalwart to a budding foodie and entrepreneur. Clearly, she needed to commercialize her product idea and didn't have the experience to get this done as quickly as her followers were calling for."

Neuman describes the venture with Chef Pii as "collaborative but quick." Even as obituaries were written for her brand, she was working to save it. An important challenge was preserving the pink color, which comes from red dragon fruit. Her dairy elements were swapped out for coconut cream, meaning the sauce is now both gluten-free and vegan - a switch that meant some of Chef Pii's close friends were able to try it for the first time. The current bottles are glass instead of plastic, for shelf stability, and "hot filled" in a process that sterilizes the product and inside of the container. A "mild preservative" was added "to strengthen the overall safety and stabilize color," Neuman says. The sauce is bottled in an FDA-registered facility that's also certified under the Safe Quality Food Program, a rigorous safety auditing service. The FDA took samples from the first production run of the improved Pink Sauce and found no issues with it.

Still, critics die hard. If you visit Chef Pii's TikTok page today, you'll see commenters wondering how on earth she's remained in business, or demanding to know why the sauce appears to come in different shades of pink. Dave's Gourmet has added a disclaimer to their product page: "The exact color or shade of Pink will always vary slightly from batch to batch due to the natural variation in color of the dragon fruit and other natural spices used to create Pink Sauce."

Every bottle is a different color because of variables that come from using a natural ingredient like dragonfruit as a bases of your color. People keep saying who they want their shit to be "natural" but when natural things happen in their food they questions it. https://t.co/RKLW28lTOc
- Jon Kung (@ChefJonKung) January 18, 2023

For what it's worth, I ordered my own bottle of Pink Sauce, currently priced at $9.99, and tried it on some chicken wings. The stuff is playful and unusual as advertised: not quite ranch, nor a vinaigrette, nor hot sauce, but triangulated somewhere between all three, with the tiniest hint of tropical fruit. I have a feeling that if you put it out at a barbecue, the hybrid flavor would spark lively debate over its merits (and what to pair it with).

That, certainly, is part of the charm. "I created the Pink Sauce to bring fun to food," Chef Pii tells Rolling Stone, and she's glad to be back on track. She's continuing to share her business journey on TikTok and Instagram, looking toward expansion: educational courses, more sauces, "a seasoning in the works," and a cookbook that will focus on her approach to the culinary arts as a multicultural chef.

"I feel like I was never canceled, right? There was just a lot of confusion, because there were a lot of unanswered questions," Chef Pii says. She jokes that the whole ordeal might become a documentary on Netflix. The "behind the scenes" drama would include when FDA representatives paid a visit to Chef Pii's home after being bombarded with complaints about the original Pink Sauce.

"There was an investigation," Chef Pii says. "They wanted to know about my process." But the agency was more helpful than punitive: "They did provide me with certain things to ensure that I don't run into issues in the future." She saw them as performing due diligence after her product had attracted an outsized furor. "I think it was a really big annoyance to have so many false claims, so many people calling, making reports," says Chef Pii, who maintains that no one ever got sick from eating Pink Sauce.

The main lesson she took away is that you have to be prepared to face demand and scrutiny when you go public. "There is a big difference between being a chef and being a food manufacturer," Chef Pii concludes. "Get a manufacturer, take the liability off of yourself, and the sky is the limit."

"We built the product not knowing where it would end up," says David Neuman. "This really has become a business-school case study in how to build a product with a popular influencer and get it into the biggest retailer in the world in less than five months. Walmart reached out to us as they are seeking to be first to market on hot items like Pink Sauce, not last."

"Maybe in the future, I'll have a full manufacturing facility, who knows?" Chef Pii says. "Look at Oprah. Oprah got fired from her job and became a billionaire. I'm an Aquarius woman. I have drive and faith, like, out of this world. The way I look at it: okay, the entire world bullied me because I created an amazing, unique product that's natural. Now I'm going to build and build and build."

It's hard to see what would stop her at this point. In an age when we expect someone's career to crash and burn once the internet turns on them, Chef Pii made a bold gamble that paid off. She stuck to a vision, one already discredited on social media, without cynically pivoting or rebranding herself, and brought it into a national store chain. The taste of that victory must be sweet - and just a little spicy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the 'Pink Sauce' Chef Survived Her Downfall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last year had memorable internet food scandals. There was alarm at Bon Appétit's Brad Leone allegedly putting viewers at risk of botulism with the way he cooked on his YouTube series It's Alive. People blamed severe illnesses and emergency surgeries on the meal kit brand Daily Harvest's lentil and leek crumbles.

# data[].attributes.body
A recent example of going viral is TikTok star Charlie D'Amelio. Charlie rose to fame in 2019, and was the first creator to ever reach 50 million followers on the app, in just 7 months. This is a perfect example of how powerful the media is and the people consuming the media. Since then she has continued to rise to fame, with having her own show on Hulu with her family, and being associated with the Kardashians, by dating Kourtney's step son, Landon Baker. Now, she has 150.5 million followers on TikTok, and 47.9 million on Instagram.

# data[].attributes.body
A blog is a website where the user/users can post whatever they feel like. In a way, it is a personalized website where the content published is completely up to the creator. There are many different types of blogs such as lifestyle blogs, sports blogs, reading blogs, etc. Blogs are essentially a place where individuals can express their interests and connect with others while doing so. I don't really stay up to date with any blogs, but a couple years ago I would, and after reading about them again I think I'll start again.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/16 Unit 6 chapter 10 concept: social media 

# data[].attributes.subject
4/16 Unit 6 chapter 10 concept: social media 

# data[].attributes.body
Social media is something that most people have, whether it be to keep up with friends and family, to post and gain followers, or just to view things that match your interests. The main used social media websites today are YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and Snapchat. All of these social medias have different components, but also have some similarities as well. Along with social media there is tagging, commenting, sharing, and liking posts and content. This is how content spreads faster. Social media is a great way to connect with people who have the same interests as you, and maybe even find a new hobby that suits you.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was really informative on how much smartphones really have impacted our lives. I guess I can't really speak from experience from before smart phones were a thing, because I always have had one. I think that people in my generation don't understand how much easier life is now that we have everything on our phones that is so easily accessible. Some examples from the article being gps/maps, using your phone to pay, and it has so many features in one thing. You can take photos, record voice memos, play music, games, and there's a calculator. Technology today really is amazing with how convenient and simple it is to do almost anything you need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some pieces of technology are so ubiquitous that it's hard to imagine what things were like before they came along. Fifteen years ago today, the first modern smartphone - Apple's first-gen iPhone - went on sale in the United States.

While business users had been answering emails on their BlackBerries (remember those?) for a few years beforehand, this signaled the start of the smartphone revolution. Before long, no shortage of competitors such as Samsung, Lenovo, and others had jumped into the category, along with Alphabet's Android platform. Here in 2022, around one in three people worldwide own a smartphone (around 3.5 billion in total).

Want to know 15 ways the smartphone changed life as you know it? Keep on scrolling (probably on said mobile device.)

1. The smartphone replaced a bunch of other gadgets

Back in 2005, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that the days were numbered for Apple's biggest hit of the time: the iPod music player. Lots of Apple fans took this as Gates simply being bitter about Apple's then-recent renaissance. In fact, Gates' point was totally valid. The iPod, he suggested, wouldn't be sustainable long-term because, at some point, a cell phone would come along that would offer MP3 playback as one of many features. Just a couple of years later, Gates' hypothesis was proven correct - by Apple.

It's not just the iPod that was cannibalized by the smartphone, though. There are plenty of other gadgets - such as flashlights, voice recorders, GPS, and more - that have been absorbed by the smartphone in the years since it made its debut.

Even tasks that once required the mighty personal computer to carry out can oftentimes be carried out using our phones. Like a Swiss Army Knife, having to fit these myriad tools into one single unit means they're not always perfect replacements. But they're frequently "good enough" to be replacements for the majority of people.

2. It changed how we pay for things

In some senses, the wallet is just another on the long list of items above that the smartphone has absorbed during its reign. But it's probably the most important one. Services like Apple Pay and Samsung Wallet have rapidly become integral to our lives. When you manage to change established behavior in such a fundamental way, that's pretty impressive. And incredibly lucrative for the companies who control these ecosystems.

3. Touchscreens you want to use

The first touchscreens didn't arrive with the smartphone. They had been around in various forms for several decades by the time the smartphone arrived. And, virtually without exception, they were horrible. With Apple's impressively sensitive, multi-touch technology on the iPhone (which allowed the screen to recognize multiple points of screen contact simultaneously), the smartphone brought us into an era in which touch screens actually worked the way sci-fi movies had promised us they would. With multi-touch came a slew of new gestures, such as pinch-to-zoom.

You only have to walk into a computer store today and see the fingerprints on traditional desktop monitors to see that, here in 2022, touch controls are considered the default by many people. We have the smartphone to thank for that.

4. The wonderful world of geolocation

There was a time, not all that long ago, when your devices didn't know exactly where in the world you were at any given moment - and, even if you told them, they wouldn't snitch on you. The smartphone changed that. Geolocation opened up a bevy of new applications, from Waze-style crowdsourced traffic measurement on mapping apps to local weather readings to new sources of information that companies can use to target you with ads.

Heck, this geolocation information has even been used in murder trials to reveal where the plaintiff was at any given moment.

5. Biometrics everywhere

A bit like touchscreens, it wasn't all that long ago that facial recognition and fingerprint sensors were bits of sci-fi that stood in as shorthand for "this story is set in the future." No longer. Although they've yet to totally replace passwords, biometric technology has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decade-and-a-half - and it's on smartphones where most of us have encountered them.

Today, smartphone security systems like Touch ID and Face ID have become so commonplace as to be almost unremarkable. That's pretty remarkable.

6. It brought computing to the masses

Smartphones were a game-changing technology for many people. But imagine if you didn't have a computer prior to the smartphone. Or a landline phone. For lots of people in the developing world, smartphones represented a seismic shift in their ability to access information and communicate. While the price of high-end smartphones has crept up in recent years, even the most expensive phones are still far cheaper than comparably high-end computers.

Meanwhile, there is no shortage of low-cost phones with impressive specs. Since cellular connectivity is a more practical solution than hardwired phones and data lines in developing parts of the world, smartphones have made their influence felt very, very quickly.

7. On-demand access to everything

Amazon changed the game when it patented a one-click ordering button in 1999. Quickly licensed by Apple, and imitated as closely as non-paying rivals could get away with, this innovation took 99% of the hassle out of e-commerce. In the age of the smartphone, this methodology has been applied to just about every other aspect of our lives.

Want a taxi? Uber lets you order one with a couple of taps. Looking for a date? Swipe left and right on Tinder until you find a match. Want to listen to an album by that artist whose music is playing in the store you're in right now? Shazam will tell you their name, and Spotify will give you access to their complete back catalog, no album purchases required. And so on and so forth. This expectation has become a standard issue.

8. The pressures of being always-on

This is the dark underbelly - or, perhaps, the inevitable flipside - of on-demand culture. As it turns out, smartphone users are also the resources to be tapped whenever required. Constant connectivity in this context can be a downside: whether it's the creeping expectation that all of us are reachable for responding to emails or Slack messages at any hour of the day (hey, it only takes a minute or so!) or the potentially mental health-damaging effects of "doom scrolling" Twitter or checking out social media platforms. It's a thorny topic with pros and cons on both sides, but it's most certainly a social phenomenon that just didn't exist in the same way before smartphones took over our lives.

9. Changing photography forever

There are very, very few occasions these days when you wish that you had a camera with you, but do not. That's because almost all of us carry around impressively adept, almost impossibly slimline digital cameras in our pockets. And, boy, do we love to use them!

Some 85% of photos today are reportedly taken on smartphones, and uploaded to social media in their hundreds of millions each day. While smartphone cameras won't substitute for a high-end professional DSLR or broadcast video camera, the combination of hardware and software advances with smartphone cameras means that they're more than capable (Capable enough, certainly, that phone cameras have been used to shoot some professional movies.)

Famed photographer Chase Jarvis once opined that "the best camera is the one that's with you." That, for many of us, makes the smartphone the best camera we own - or, at least, the one we rely on the most.

10. The supercharging of social media

Social media of some sort has existed as long as there has been the internet. Facebook, the world's biggest social network, emerged in the pre-smartphone era. So did Twitter. But smartphones were the natural companion piece to social media platforms, giving us the ability to connect on the go, complete with geolocation, the aforementioned smartphone camera, and a second screen (or, sometimes, the first screen) that was always with us.

The smartphone begat social media platforms from Instagram to TikTok to Tinder, all of which felt tailor-made for the smartphone era. Other social media platforms quickly learned they had to pivot to mobile-first in order to thrive. There would still be social media if the smartphone hadn't come along. However, it most certainly wouldn't be as ubiquitous.

11. The beginning of iOS vs. Android

Windows versus Mac? OK, boomer. Today's platform war is firmly centered around mobile devices, most notably around Alphabet's Android platform and Apple's iOS. For the most part, Android is more widespread, while iOS hoovers up the overwhelming majority of the money in the mobile ecosystem. Although both platforms are objectively good with their own pros/cons, that hasn't stopped folks from getting into heated debates about which is "the best."

12. It made AI part of our daily lives

There are countless smartphone apps that have used machine learning in various smart ways at this point. But, for many people, the real turning point was the introduction of Siri - Apple's smart AI assistant, with the iPhone 4s in 2011. While Siri had previously been available, in a somewhat altered form as an iPhone app, Apple made several tweaks and packaged it as a native application.

Just over a decade later, AI assistants like Amazon's Alexa and Google Assistant have graduated to become their own category of hardware device found in an impressive number of homes around the world. But gadgets like the Amazon Echo would have never become a thing if the feature hadn't first made its debut on the smartphone. And, in the process, given the world a piece of AI technology we would happily carry around chatting with.

13. Enabling a new generation of activists

Activism in the digital age can get a bad rap, with some critics referring dismissively to the era of "slacktivism" as a form of low-stakes, low-effort activism that asks supporters to do nothing more arduous than signing an online petition or changing their Facebook profile picture. But smartphones have most assuredly changed the way that activism is carried out - in ways far more significant than just Change.org petitions.

In particular, the powerful combination of constant connectivity and ubiquitous smartphone cameras has helped to spread awareness about some of the most notable news events of our time. Think the Arab Spring protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the early 2010s, or, more recently, the video recordings of George Floyd's murder. In all these cases, smartphones played a key role in the way these events were reported on and disseminated. The Vietnam war is often cited as having changed American media through the advent of trends like "hit and run" reporting. Smartphones have triggered a similar change when it comes to citizen journalism, social justice, and the like.

14. Better (and easier) software distribution

Whether it was the iOS App Store or the Google Play store, the smartphone helped pioneer a new way for developers to find an audience for their products. One or two-person teams had been creating software, alongside the big companies, since the earliest days of the personal computer. But what they lacked was a way to distribute these that harnessed the reach of major companies like Apple and Google to aid with discoverability. Smartphone app stores changed that.

They also created entirely new business models, as seen through the rise of "freemium" apps, free to download by full of in-app purchases. Recently, challenges like Epic Games' battle against Apple, have questioned the legality of gatekeepers like Apple taking such a large cut of developer fees. Regardless of how this turns out, however, there's no doubt it's changed distribution as we know it.

15. It helped usher in the next era of computing

Some technologies aren't just notable in their own right, they also act as bridges that take us from one era of computing to the next. Smartphones fall into both camps. While they certainly represented a game-changer in their own right, they additionally changed our expectations about what a computer was - particularly when it came to portability.

Sure, there were laptops in the 1990s. However, these weren't used on the move nearly as effortlessly as smartphones. As such, smartphones helped set the stage for a new age of computing built around wearable devices like smartwatches and beyond. Would we have accepted the latter without smartphones preceding them? I'd argue we wouldn't.

Editors' Recommendations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 ways smartphones transformed life as you know it | Digital Trends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some pieces of technology are so ubiquitous that it's hard to imagine what things were like before they came along. Fifteen years ago today, the first modern smartphone - Apple's first-gen iPhone - went on sale in the United States. While business users had been answering emails on their BlackBerries (remember those?)

# data[].attributes.body
Nothing that this article talked about surprised me at all. I have always loved Marilyn Monroe because my grandma always loved her, and I refuse to watch the series on her because of how horrible it depicts her. She has always been looked at as a sex symbol which is very sad because that is the one thing she did not want to be known as. It doesn't talk about the things that matter such as she loved to read, she was extremely smart, and was just a kind soul. The only thing that they wanted to talk about was her sexuality, which is very common in media today. Over the past couple of years the media has really gotten away with how much they expose women on screen, and it is really sad to me. For example, in most R or MA rated movies, there is usually female nudity, and rarely male nudity, but if there ever is, it is usable just of the mans butt. Something that I recently read about that somewhat relates to this is how actress Aubrey Plaza just came out and stated that a director made her masturbate in from of the crew for a scene in the movie 'To Do List'. This is disgusting and is just really sad to see that the media is still trying to make woman look and feel like a sex symbol.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
here is scarcely a scene in , Netflix's new Marilyn biopic, in which Monroe is not topless, crying, being raped or having a forced abortion. Thinking gritty realism? Think again. The whole thing is shot in dreamy high-glamour soft focus, with arty choices and the occasional cameo from a squeaky-voiced foetus. As for realism, some of this stuff didn't even happen - there is no evidence for the abortions, for example - and much is left out. Filmmaker Andrew Dominik told interviewers Monroe's activism and success wresting control from a male-dominated industry - forming her own production company, for example - were " not so interesting to me ".

At present there's something of a fetish for biopics about exploited female celebrities, which tout themselves as feminist while dwelling lasciviously on the suffering of their subjects. Take , about the famous sex tape, or , which portrays Judy Garland in her last days, or the endless revisiting of the unravellings of Princess Diana, in ever tighter closeup.

You can see the incentives for filmmakers. Make a biopic "commenting" on a sexually exploited celebrity, like Monroe or Anderson, and you get to recreate the same sexualised images that drew crowds in the first place - only this time, it's trendily feminist. (In Blonde the camera at one point ventures into Monroe's cervix.) But there's a larger market you are feeding, too, which has nothing to do with feminism - the market for female pain.

This market has always been amply served by the television and film industry. Crime dramas are replete with artfully displayed female corpses, history - even fake history, such as in the pseudo middle ages fantasy land of House of the Dragon - has a disturbing penchant for what I will call torture porn, with rape everywhere, for "realism". (One in 10 rape victims, by the way, is male, yet male rape almost never makes an appearance in such dramas, however realistic it might be in context. Why ever not?)

Often, too, there is an old moral lesson wrapped up in the horror: it is promiscuous and powerful women to whom bad things most often happen. This is even the case in modern films (perhaps these lessons are so ingrained we can't help retelling them). The story in Blonde, of course, repeats a classic horror film trope - the promiscuous blonde who deserves to die first.

This package - misogyny wrapped in a veneer of feminism - is familiar even outside the films. It is also how we now consume our female celebrities. Naked photoshoots on the covers of magazines are always feminist-washed in the accompanying article: the celebrity is "reclaiming" their body in defiance of a sexualising industry, making the "empowering choice" to be naked despite their stretchmarks, taking out their breasts "on their own terms" etcetera. But nudity is not enough either, female stars must now serve us up their pain as well - they have to "open up" to rubbernecking readers about their trauma, battle with anorexia, miscarriage, PTSD, trolling or sexual assault.

If this serves a feminist purpose, it is lost in the larger patriarchal one: to reduce even successful women to sexualised and traumatised bodies. Time to stop "examining" the exploitation of female celebrities by thrusting cameras up their skirts.

Martha Gill is a political journalist and former lobby correspondent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If Blonde is a feminist film, why is Marilyn Monroe still being exploited? | Martha Gill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
here is scarcely a scene in , Netflix's new Marilyn biopic, in which Monroe is not topless, crying, being raped or having a forced abortion. Thinking gritty realism? Think again. The whole thing is shot in dreamy high-glamour soft focus, with arty choices and the occasional cameo from a squeaky-voiced foetus.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/2 Unit 5 concept: diversity on television 

# data[].attributes.subject
4/2 Unit 5 concept: diversity on television 

# data[].attributes.body
Unfortunately when broadcasting and television was first becoming popular, the main actors/actresses on the screen were white. Times were also different then, but that is never an excuse. Recently in the 21st century there is lots of diversity on screen, but this just started happening recently. When I was younger I really don't remember seeing that many movies with the protagonist being a different race than white. Thankfully now there are way more representations of diversity in films, but the white actors are usually the ones to be recognized more. I was curious to see how many actors that were white have won oscars and compared that to the amount of people who are not white who has won oscars and I was shocked at the difference. Unsurprisingly there were way more white actors that have won compared to other races. Something big that did just happen was that costumer designed Ruth E. Carter just made history for being the first every black woman to win more than one Oscar. This is obviously a very good thing, but I believe that this 'history' that was made should have happened long ago.

# data[].attributes.body
The suitability of each film title is determined by the movie rating system. The initial classifications were: G (general audience), PG (Parental Guidance Suggested), PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested, May Not Be Appropriate for Ages Under 13), R (Restricted, 17 and Under May Be Accompanied by an Adult), and NC-17  (no one under 17 permitted). Since G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 were added in 1968, these categories have been changed. The original ranking system included a variety of parents from various professions such as carpenters, teachers, manicurist, etc. This was done in order to provide different viewpoints on the choice, and that multiple options were validated. Every movie and TV show uses the rating system nowadays, and I do not think it is something that will go away because it helps parents decide what is appropriate for their children to watch.

# data[].attributes.body
Another on demand service is Hulu and Disney plus. These two separate streaming companies recently collaborated together and made a bundle pack. This means that you get get Hulu and Disney plus for cheaper than paying for both of them individually. We have also learned that Disney is such a massive company, so for Hulu to collaborate with them, it is a great marketing strategy. Both of these services allow you to watch whatever you want. The only downside to Hulu is that there are different pack options, such as having to pay a little more for no ads.

# data[].attributes.body
An example of an on demand service is Netflix. Netflix started out in 1997, and in order to get the movie you would want to watch, you would select it and they would mail it to you. Now Netflix has obviously evolved since then, allowing members to watch whatever they would like by just clicking on the title. Recently, Netflix has gotten a lot of backlash for their new rule that they put into place stating that you are no longer allowed to share your password if you do not live in the same household. This made a lot of users upset, because a lot of the users share their passwords with family members that do not live in the house.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this term because I feel that it really changed a lot about the world of media. Before on demand became popular, people would go out to movie stores such as blockbuster to rent movies physically. But once on demand was available, people realized it was more convenient to rent and buy movies from the comfort of your home, rather than having to drive to the store to pick something out. Video on demand plays a big part in the shutting down of movies stores. It also shows how much we have evolved with technology, and displays that there can be easier techniques to get what you want to watch.

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly this is terrifying. I don't understand why inventions like these are being produced, because there are so many movies out there that show us that it is a terrible idea. I think that normal citizens should not have access to this because if it can imitate someones voice, there are so many things that can go wrong with this if it is put in the wrong hands. I just think that we should learn on how to better or technology now, and stop making scary robots and voice imitators. It just has a lot of potential to cause issues or harm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microsoft’s VALL-E can simulate any voice with 3 seconds of audio • Mezha.Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Microsoft researchers announced a new text-to-speech AI model called VALL-E, which can accurately imitate a human voice given a 3-second audio sample. After

# data[].attributes.headline
3/12 Unit 4 chapter 6 concept: Golden Age of Radio 

# data[].attributes.subject
3/12 Unit 4 chapter 6 concept: Golden Age of Radio 

# data[].attributes.body
The golden age of radio was a period of time during the 1920s- 1940s where the radio served as the main source of entertainment in a household. This was a change for everyone during these times because everyone was used to getting their news and everything from outside of their homes, and how they had the luxury of hearing it all in the comfort of their own homes. This also brought many things to the radio such as live music, news, and even drama and action programs. The only program from this time that actually stuck and continued to be popular were soap operas. I feel that this makes sense because in the early 1900s working women were not as common, so they had more time to listen to the radio. Another interesting thing to me is how similar the golden age of radio is to television today, with the endless amounts of channels and genres you can enjoy.

# data[].attributes.body
These statistics did not surprise me at all, and I am also not surprised that there is an expected grow in popularity. With the data of 62% of Americans who have listened to a podcast before, we can only expect that to continue to grow. It was also interesting to see that Spotify is the most used app to listen to podcasts, and I was shocked that Apple Music was not the top listening app. I think that Spotify is on top because it has more podcasts, as well as more of a variety for everyone to enjoy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The podcast audience is growing

As awareness and usage has grown, so has consumption frequency. Data from a study conducted in early 2022 showed that 38 percent of the U.S. population reported to have listened to a podcast in the past month, more than three times the share recorded a decade earlier. The audience of podcasts is increasingly diverse. While the format is being consumed by both, female and male consumers, male listeners slightly outweighing the female counterpart with a share of 53 percent. While older generations also tune in, the main group consuming podcasts is the age group of 12 to 34 year-olds.

National Public Radio and iHeartRadio are competing for market dominance

When it comes to publishers, National Public Radio (NPR) is one of the leaders the United States, normally drawing in a unique monthly audience of over 18 million listeners. Using the reputation and influence from its massive U.S. based following, NPR also ranks among the top podcast publishers worldwide, accumulating hundreds of millions of unique streams and downloads each month. The success of NPR can be attributed mainly to its unique content; a number of its podcasts, such as NPR Politics Podcast, TED Radio Hour, Planet Money, and Fresh Air offer listeners a combination of entertainment and practical knowledge that has become popular among listeners. However, in 2022, the most popular podcast publishers were iHeartPodcasts followed by Wondery.

NPR competes with iHeartRadio for the top spot when it comes to listeners and downloads both in the United States and worldwide, with iHeartRadio having built up a solid lead over NRP in recent years. Podcasts can be a lucrative source of revenue for media companies, evidenced by iHeartMedia which filed for bankruptcy in 2018 and emerged with revenue of over 3.68 billion U.S. dollars at the end of the following year thanks to its digital and podcasting endeavors. Meanwhile, the format's growing popularity and potential led music streaming giant Spotify to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on podcast-related acquisitions, including award-winning company Gimlet. Even retail behemoth Amazon is intending to get involved in the industry, paving the way for disruptions and competition in the market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find the most up-to-date statistics and facts on podcasts and the podcasting industry in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
A podcast that I personally listen to is "anything goes" with Emma Chamberlain. I have been watching her on YouTube since she had only a couple thousand followers, and when she came out with a podcast I was ecstatic. In her podcast Emma talks a lot about struggles that she faces, as well as her viewers. It is a very real and raw podcast as she touches on her struggles with depression and anxiety, etc. but it is also very motivating to hear someone talk about the hard topics in life. It is also hilarious, and always puts me into a better mood. This is a podcast that I recommend to everyone, and my friends and I all absolutely love it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to Anything Goes with Emma Chamberlain on Spotify.

# data[].attributes.body
Podcasts are audio recordings of people talking about topics and important events. Podcasts usually consist of one or more individuals talking about topics or events that are relevant. Recently podcasts have become very popular, as many music streaming platforms offer them, as well as YouTube and other apps. I think that podcast do so well because there is such a wide range of audiences that you can meet because there are so many different podcasts on different topics. It also just gives the listener a chance to listen to what they want based on their needs, which is a big plus to this as well. Another thing that adds to the connivence of this is that you don't have to watch anything, so you can listen to them when you are doing literally anything!

# data[].attributes.body
I think that this term plays very well in this chapter due to how influential the media is today. I have personally bought something that I have seen an influencer use on social media, just from a couple second video. In todays society it is very common to see someone 'jumping on the band wagon' of a trend that is occurring.

# data[].attributes.body
This title of this article says it all. Flare jeans were a big fashion trend in the 70's as well as the mid 90's to 2000's. The trend for the past couple years have been skinny jeans, but recently the flare style is back. As people see influencers and big brands wear and put out these items, they want to purchase them to be on trend. These style pants now come in may different fabrics such as denim, leggings, corduroy, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These days, you blink and there's a new denim trend. One minute skinny jeans are out and super baggy is in. The next? Boot-cut is all the rage. It's hard to keep up, but as someone who's extremely denim obsessed, I must. I've tried just about every style over the years. But one silhouette that I've always steered clear from? Flares.

The thought of those '70s-style bell-bottoms has always felt too cartoonish or retro for my own taste. Don't get me wrong, I love the style-but any time I've tried on a pair, I've felt like I was wearing a Halloween costume or cosplaying as Mick Jagger. However, as we're stepping into the new year, I'm tasking myself to dress outside my comfort zone (call it a style resolution), and wide-leg jeans are now at the top of the list. Lucky for me, the recent runways and street style scene prove that flares can work on just about anyone in 2022, whether in a casual or dressy context.

Where flared jeans were once associated with groovy, hippie-dippie style, they're now a more sophisticated and polished denim option-the perfect alternative for overcoming my fear of looking like an extra in Saturday Night Fever. For spring 2023, for instance, Celine paired flares with sleek moto jackets; Altuzarra's wide-leg jeans were styled with a cropped jacket and white blouse, striking the right combo between elegance and ease; and Dior even showed flares with a simple neutral tank, allowing the pants to shine totally on their own.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Flared Jeans Used to Scare Me. Now I'm Ready to Rock Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These days, you blink and there's a new denim trend. One minute skinny jeans are out and super baggy is in. The next? Boot-cut is all the rage. It's hard to keep up, but as someone who's extremely denim obsessed, I must. I've tried just about every style over the years.

# data[].attributes.body
This video from tiktok shows how easily influenced people are. An example from this video is the Stanley cup. In 2019 the trend was being a 'vsco girl', and having a hydro flask was a big deal. For years hydro flask has been a water bottle that most influencers used and talked about, until the Stanley cup. The Stanley cup is the new water bottle trend, due to influencers purchasing it posting videos about it and people seeing that and buying one themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Excuse my no makeup 🤮 #stanleycup #amazonfinds #amazonmusthaves #amazon #easilyinfluenced #influencer #pov #relatable #lolipop #target #fyp #viral 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
@natalies.smith
Excuse my no makeup 🤮 #stanleycup #amazonfinds #amazonmusthaves #amazon #easilyinfluenced #influencer #pov #relatable #lolipop #target #fyp #viral
♬ kill bill by sza - lyrics e traduções.

# data[].attributes.body
Another trend coming back from the 70's is the longer hair on men. My younger brother and my boyfriend both have longer hair, and I have noticed that most of the males in my generation have longer hair. An example from my own life of someone 'hopping on the band wagon' is when my youngest brother expressed he wanted longer hair like his big brother. Due to the long hair trend in males coming back, I also have noticed an increase in male hair product ads such as curl cream, leave in conditioner, and style cream.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who should you speak to when looking for the best tonsorial tips? Barbers, of course. After all, these are the people who are paid to keep up with the latest hair trends and execute them with surgical precision.

Thankfully, Ape has a full roster of talented hair professionals on speed dial, and they are all reporting the same key style for men this year: longer hair.

Why Is Long Hair Trending?

"Simply put, fashion repeats itself. Trends come and go, and then they come and go again," says leading barber and The Bluebeards Revenge ambassador Callum Marks.

He's right. The last time long hair for men went mainstream was back in the 1960/70s - fuelled by a rebellious youth culture. Today, that same streak of rebellion is driving the trend's return. But this movement can't only be about millennial nonconformity, can it?

According to Vincent Quinn, Scotland's Best Barber 2017, and Head Barber at Hard Grind Dundee, a lot of the current styles are also being influenced by the clothes we wear. "Menswear's current obsession with streetwear is definitely influencing the haircuts that my customers are asking for, with many of the hottest streetwear brands currently embracing the 1990s look," he explains.

As a result, throwback styles like the bowl cut, the wedge cut and even classic curtains are topping the trending list for the younger generation. A great example of this is the wavy curtains Timothée Chalamet is currently wearing, but more on that later.

Can Barbers Cut Long Hair?

You'd do well to find someone more competent with clippers and a cut-throat razor than a barber. However, styling longer hair has not traditionally been their forte.

Thankfully, times have changed. "The current trends are really exciting for barbers as this time around we're a lot more competent working with length," says Ollie Foster from Number 47 Barbers in Chester. "We're not just specialists in short back and sides anymore. Now, we're seen as hybrids between our historic roots and more modern hairdressing."

It's a sentiment echoed by Quinn. "Barbers are better and more technically trained now, so these [new trends] are being treated professionally and adapted to avoid the 'cut at home in the dark' vibe."

Callum Marks also chipped in, reminding us that with longer hair comes an increased demand for scissor work and superior styling products. "Scissor work will be huge for barbers this year," he said, "especially as we start to see more contemporary mod-inspired cuts that pay more attention to the natural flow of a client's hair. It will also be essential for barbers to have a good stock of products that accentuate texture, volume and matte finishes."

How Long Should You Grow Your Hair?

Of course, not every man will be looking to grow his hair out beyond his shoulders. Many will instead find themselves adding more length to the top, while keeping the sides tight to create contrast and keep the overall appearance neat.

"Loads of my clients have been asking me to make them look like Chris Hemsworth, Cillian Murphy and (as always) David Beckham," says Liam Hamilton, owner of Hamilton's Barbers in Redruth, Cornwall. "I think styles like these [long through the top, clippered back and sides] are where the bulk of men will find themselves settling this year."

Italian barber Luigi Caterino agrees. "I'm expecting to see a lot of clean fades with longer hair on top this year," he says. That's what the gents in my shop are always asking for."

Top 5 Long Hairstyles For Men

Natural, Collar-Length Hair

This laid-back, breezy cut is perfect for guys who want longer hair without the hassle. It works for all hair types and thickness - your barber will simply need to adjust their technique to create layers that complement texture and face shape accordingly.

The key to making this hairstyle work is all in the cut. The weight and balance of the hair needs to be distributed evenly so it falls into place naturally.

When it comes to styling, less is more. Wash your hair with a high-quality moisturising shampoo and conditioner, then let it air dry. Depending on the finish you're looking for, you can spritz a little sea salt spray into the hair when damp to create a matte, textured effect. Or you could apply a pomade once dry to give the hair a healthy shine while enhancing any natural waves or curls.

Slick Back With Disconnected Undercut

The slick-back is a neat, old-school style that is experiencing a resurgence in popularity with modern gentleman. This is thanks in no small part to hit show Peaky Blinders, as well as a number of high profile advocates such as David Beckham and Brad Pitt.

As with any cut that is styled away from the face, it works best on those with a strong hairline and little to no thinning. Men with longer face shapes should also be cautious of taking the sides too tight and adding height on top, which can elongate the face even more.

Styling wise, you have a couple of options. First off, you could add a liberal dose of pomade and comb the hair back tight to the head for a neat, clean finish, reminiscent of the original 1900s style. Alternatively, start by adding a little salt spray or texture powder to damp hair. Next, blow-dry it backwards with a vented hairbrush to create a contemporary pompadour, full of volume and texture.

Mod-Inspired Mop

This messy, textured cut harks back to the golden days of Britpop, when everyone from the Gallagher brothers to Ian Brown adopted the style. Although the aforementioned artists wore theirs mid-length, contemporary versions - seen prominently at recent Gucci showcases - leave the hair longer, allowing it to be pushed off the face and tucked behind the ears or swept across the forehead.

The good news is you don't have to start playing a Union Jack-printed Gibson Les Paul and swearing at journalists to pull it off. A good option for both straight and wavy hair, this style should be worn relaxed and choppy. Your barber should have a pretty good idea, but it's always best to take a picture along for reference. That way you can preempt any awkward, post-trim mirror moments.

To style, keep things as natural as possible. Allow hair to air dry after washing and if you must use product, opt for a small amount of clay or wax to add a touch of texture and shine.

Quiff With Undercut

Sporting a longer hairstyle doesn't have to mean channelling Rapunzel. A simple quiff provides a way to wear some length on top without it getting in the way. Couple that with the sharp edges and tight back and sides offered by an undercut and you're onto a winner. David Beckham knows. In fact, this cut has become something of a defining look for the former England captain over the years. Which, for a man who rattles through different trims with such alarming frequency, is quite something.

Again, due to the brushed-back nature of this particular cut, it works best for men with strong hairlines. It's also worth giving it a wide berth if you frequently find yourself on the receiving end of why-the-long-face jibes. Best not to add fuel to the fire. Everyone else, on the other hand, go wild. The added length on top will balance things out nicely, especially for those with rounder faces.

The secret to perfect styling lies in how it's dried. Use a blow dryer and a vented brush to style it up and away from the face. Then it's simply a case of working through a small amount of your preferred product in order to achieve your chosen finish.

Contemporary Curtains

In terms of surprising comebacks, curtains are right up there with wraparound shades and tie dye. Unlike the latter two, however, a fresh, contemporary spin has made the curtain resurgence something we can really get on board with. Stars like Timothee Chalamet and Dev Patel have been at the centre of this unlikely return, with parted cuts worn loose and messy. A timeless take on those over-gelled, neatly combed versions we were subjected to in the nineties.

This comeback is still in its infancy, so don't simply walk into a barbershop, say "curtains, please" and expect to come out looking like TC. Again, giving your stylist a photograph to work from is a very good idea. Rest assured, though, this style will work with a broad spectrum of face shapes and it couldn't be easier to style.

Apply a mist of sea-salt spray to damp hair and either blow dry or allow it to air out naturally. Finish with a paste worked through with your fingers and remember that when it comes to styling products, less is always more.

Recommended Styling Products

Essential Long Hair Maintenance

For a quick recap, allow us to run through some of the key points to remember when looking after longer hair:

DO invest in a good hairdryer, a vented brush and maybe even a diffuser

DON'T get carried away with styling products

DO get frequent trims to avoid falling victim to split ends

DON'T expose hair to excessive heat from hair straighteners

DO eat a protein-rich diet to keep hair glossy and nourished

DON'T scrimp on cheap shampoo and conditioner

DO carry a comb for through-the-day touch-ups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best Long Hairstyles For Men, As Recommended By Barbers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Who should you speak to when looking for the best tonsorial tips? Barbers, of course. After all, these are the people who are paid to keep up with the latest hair trends and execute them with surgical precision.

# data[].attributes.headline
2/5 Unit 1: Chapter 1 concept: 4 levels of communication 

# data[].attributes.subject
2/5 Unit 1: Chapter 1 concept: 4 levels of communication 

# data[].attributes.body
The four levels of communication are essential to know when thinking about media. George Gerber's definition of communication is "social interaction through messages", and that can be seen in each level of communication. Whether you are alone or with a friend, you are always using communication. Communication is constantly happening in our every day lives. The four levels are intrapersonal, interpersonal, group communication, and mass communication. Mass communication is something that we see every day in our lives, and it comes in many forms. It could be a news story, and article in the paper, or when a singer releases tour dates. I mentioned mass media because I feel that it is becoming more and more prevalent than it was, say 10 years ago. With so many more media sites such as instagram, snapchat and twitter it is so much easier for news to spread across the world in seconds.

# data[].attributes.body
My initial reaction to this article was that I am not surprised at all. Over the past years I have read and seen many things that talk about how badly social media distorts young peoples minds about how they look about themselves. I remember when I was in 8th grade I had taught one of my friends how to photoshop something for her to post on instagram, and we thought nothing of it because it is so normalized. There are so many records of males and females especially getting mental illnesses such as an eating disorder or depression due to social media. Another point to think about is how children so young have access to the internet. My youngest brother is 10 years old and he has had access to an iPad probably since he was 3 years old. This generation is also so easily influenced as talked about in my other posts so seeing these size zero models is very damaging to developing minds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to Content

The most widespread use of augmented reality isn't in gaming: it's the face filters on social media. The result? A mass experiment on girls and young women.

Veronica started using filters to edit pictures of herself on social media when she was 14 years old. She remembers everyone in her middle school being excited by the technology when it became available, and they had fun playing with it. "It was kind of a joke," she says. "People weren't trying to look good when they used the filters."

But her younger sister, Sophia, who was a fifth grader at the time, disagrees. "I definitely was-me and my friends definitely were," she says. "Twelve-year-old girls having access to something that makes you not look like you're 12? Like, that's the coolest thing ever. You feel so pretty."

When augmented-reality face filters first appeared on social media, they were a gimmick. They allowed users to play a kind of virtual dress-up: change your face to look like an animal, or suddenly grow a mustache, for example.

Today, though, more and more young people-and especially teenage girls-are using filters that "beautify" their appearance and promise to deliver model-esque looks by sharpening, shrinking, enhancing, and recoloring their faces and bodies. Veronica and Sophia are both avid users of Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok, where these filters are popular with millions of people.

"The beauty filter sort of changes certain things about your appearance and can fix certain parts of you."

Through swipes and clicks, the array of face filters enable them to adjust their own image, and even sift through different identities, with new ease and flexibility.

Veronica, now 19, scrolls back to check pictures from the time on her iPhone. "Wait," she says, stopping on one. "Oh yeah ... I was definitely trying to look good." She shows me a picture of a glammed-up version of herself. She looks seductive. Her eyes are wide, lips slightly parted, and her skin looks tanned and airbrushed. "That's me when I'm 14," Veronica says. She seems distressed by the picture. Still, she says, she's using filters almost every day.

"When I'm going to use a face filter, it's because there are certain things that I want to look different," she explains. "So if I'm not wearing makeup or if I think I don't necessarily look my best, the beauty filter sort of changes certain things about your appearance and can fix certain parts of you."

The face filters that have become commonplace across social media are perhaps the most widespread use of augmented reality. Researchers don't yet understand the impact that sustained use of augmented reality may have, but they do know there are real risks-and with face filters, young girls are the ones taking that risk. They are subjects in an experiment that will show how the technology changes the way we form our identities, represent ourselves, and relate to others. And it's all happening without much oversight.

The rise of selfie culture

Beauty filters are essentially automated photo editing tools that use artificial intelligence and computer vision to detect facial features and change them.

They use computer vision to interpret the things the camera sees, and tweak them according to rules set by the filters' creator. A computer detects a face and then overlays an invisible facial template consisting of dozens of dots, creating a sort of topographic mesh. Once that has been built, a universe of fantastical graphics can be attached to the mesh. The result can be anything from changing eye colors to planting devil horns on a person's head.

These real-time video filters are a recent advance, but beauty filters more broadly are an extension of the decades-old selfie phenomenon. The movement is rooted in Japanese "kawaii" culture, which obsesses over (typically girly) cuteness, and it developed when purikura-photo booths that allowed customers to decorate self-portraits-became staples in Japanese video arcades in the mid-1990s. In May of 1999, Japanese electronics manufacturer Kyocera released the first mobile phone with a front-facing camera, and selfies started to break out to the mainstream.

The rise of MySpace and Facebook internationalized selfies in the early 2000s, and the launch of Snapchat in 2011 marked the beginning of the iteration that we see today. The app offered quick messaging through pictures, and the selfie was an ideal medium for visually communicating one's reactions, feelings, and moods. In 2013, Oxford Dictionaries selected "selfie" as the word of the year, and by 2015 Snapchat had acquired the Ukrainian company Looksery and released the "Lenses" feature, much to the delight of Veronica's middle school clique.

Filters are now common across social media, though they take different forms. Instagram bundles beauty filters with its other augmented-reality facial filters, like those that add a dog's ears and tongue to a person's face. Snapchat offers a gallery of filters where users can swipe through beauty-enhancing effects on their selfie camera. TikTok's beauty filter, meanwhile, is part of a setting called "Enhance," where users can enable a standard beautification on any subject.

And they are incredibly popular. Facebook and Instagram alone claim that over 600 million people have used at least one of the AR effects associated with the company's products: a spokesperson said that beauty filters are a "popular category" of effects but would not elaborate further. Today, according to Bloomberg, almost a fifth of Facebook's employees-about 10,000 people- are working on AR or VR products, and Mark Zuckerberg recently told The Information, "I think it really makes sense for us to invest deeply to help shape what I think is going to be the next major computing platform, this combination of augmented and virtual reality."

They are subjects in an experiment that will show how the technology changes the way we form our identities, represent ourselves, and relate to others.

Snapchat boasts its own stunning numbers. A spokesperson said that "200 million daily active users play with or view Lenses every day to transform the way they look, augment the world around them, play games, and learn about the world," adding that more than 90% of young people in the US, France, and the UK use the company's AR products.

Another measure of popularity might be how many filters exist. The majority of filters on Facebook's various products are created by third-party users, and in the first year its tools were available, more than 400,000 creators released a total of over 1.2 million effects. By September 2020, more than 150 creator accounts had each passed the milestone of 1 billion views.

Face filters on social media might seem technologically unimpressive compared with some other uses of AR, but Jeremy Bailenson, the founding director of Stanford University's Virtual Human Interaction Lab, says the real-time puppy filters are actually quite a technological feat.

"It's hard to do that technically," he says. But thanks to neural networks, AI can now help achieve the kind of data processing required for real-time video altering. And the way it's taken off in recent years surprises even longtime researchers like him.

A "beautiful" community

Many people enjoy filters and lenses-both as users and creators. Caroline Rocha, a makeup artist and photographer, says that social media filters-and Instagram's in particular-provided her a lifeline at a crucial moment. In 2018, she was at a personal low point: someone very dear to her had died, and then she suffered a stroke that resulted in temporary paralysis of her leg and permanent paralysis of her hand. Things got so overwhelming that she attempted suicide.

"I just wanted to come out of my reality," she says. "My reality was dark. It was deep. I passed my days inside four walls." Filters felt like a breakthrough. They gave her "the chance to travel ... to experiment, to try on makeup, to try a piece of jewelry," she says. "It opened a big window for me."

She had studied art history in school, and Instagram filters felt like a deeply human and artistic world, full of opportunity and connection. She became friends with AR creators whose aesthetic spoke to her. Through that, she became a "filters influencer," though she says she hates that term: she would try different filters and critique them for a growing audience of followers. Eventually, she started creating filters herself.

Rocha became connected with creators like Marc Wakefield, an artist and AR designer who specializes in dark, fantastical effects. (One of his hits is " Hole in the Head," in which a see-through hole replaces the subject's face.) The community was "so close and so helpful," she says-"beautiful," even. She had no technical expertise when she started creating AR effects, and spent hours poring over help documents with help from others.

Her first viral filter was called "Alive": it overlaid the electrical pulse of a heartbeat right across the face of its subject. After a moment, the line distorts into a heart that encircles one eye before flashes of colored light illuminate the screen. Rocha says Alive was an homage to her own story of mental illness.

Rocha's experience is not unusual: many people enjoy the playfulness of the technology. Facebook describes AR effects as a way to "make any moment more fun to share," while Snapchat says the goal of Lens "is to provide fun and playful creative effects that allow our community to express themselves freely."

But Rocha has changed her view. This artistic conception of filters now seems idealistic to her, not least because it is not necessarily representative of how the majority of people use filters. Artistic or funny filters may be popular, but they are dwarfed by beauty filters.

Facebook and Snapchat were both hesitant to provide any data breaking out filters that are solely appearance enhancing from those that are more novel. Facebook's creators categorize their own filters into 17 ambiguous buckets, whose names include "Appearance," "Selfies," "Moods," and "Camera styles." "Appearance" is in the top 10 most popular categories, said the Facebook spokesperson, but refused to elaborate further.

Rocha says she sees many women on social media using filters nonstop. "They refuse to be seen without these filters, because in their mind they think that they look like that," she says. "It became, for me, a bit sick."

In fact, she struggled with it herself. "I've always fought against this kind of fakeness," she says, but "I'd say, 'Okay, I have to change my picture. I have to make my nose thinner and give myself a big lip because I feel ugly.' And I was like, 'Whoa, Whoa, no, I'm not like that. I want to feel beautiful without changing these things.'"

She says the beauty-obsessed culture of AR filters has become increasingly disappointing: "It has changed because, in my point of view ... the new generation of creators just want money and fame."

"There is a bad mood in the community," she says. "It's all about fame and number of followers, and I think it's sad, because we are making art, and it's about our emotions ... It's very sad what's happening right now."

"I don't think it's just filtering your actual image. It's filtering your whole life."

Veronica, the teenager, sees the same patterns. "If someone is completely portraying themselves in one filter and has only posted photos in a filter meeting all of the beauty standards and gaining followers and making money off of the beauty standard that we have right now-I don't know if that's, like, genius or if that's terrible," she says.

Claire Pescott is a researcher at the University of South Wales who studies the behavior of preteens on social media. In focus groups, she's observed a gender difference when it comes to filters. "All of the boys said, 'These are really fun. I like to put on these funny ears, I like to share them with my friends and we have a laugh,'" she says. Young girls, however, see AR filters primarily as a tool for beautification: "[The girls] were all saying things like, 'I put this filter on because I have flawless skin. It takes away my scars and spots.' And these were children of 10 and 11."

"I don't think it's just filtering your actual image," she says. "It's filtering your whole life."

And this change is only just beginning. AR filters on social media are part of a rapidly growing suite of automated digital beauty technologies. The app Facetune has been downloaded over 60 million times and exists simply for easy video and photo editing. Presets are a recent phenomenon in which creators-and established influencers in particular-create and sell custom filters in Adobe Lightroom. Even Zoom has a "touch up my appearance" feature that gives the appearance of smoother skin in video calls. M any have heralded the option to buff your appearance as a low-effort savior during the pandemic.

Reality distortion field

During our conversations, I asked Veronica to define what an "Instagram Face" looks like. She replied quickly and confidently: "Small nose, big eyes, clear skin, big lips."

This aesthetic relies on categories of AR effects called "deformation" and "face distortion." As opposed to the Zoom-like touch-up that simply blends skin tones or saturates eye color, distortion effects allow creators to easily change the shape and size of certain facial features, creating things like a "bigger lip," a "lifted eyebrow," or a "narrower jaw," according to Rocha.

Teenagers Sophia and Veronica say they prefer distortion filters. One of Sophia's favorites makes her look like singer and influencer Madison Beer. "It has these massive lashes that make my eyes look beautiful. My lips triple in size and my nose is tinier," she says. But she's cautious: "Nobody looks like that unless you are Madison Beer or someone who has a really, really good nose job."

Veronica's "ideal" filter, meanwhile, is a distortion filter called Naomi Beauty on Snapchat, which she says all her friends use. "It is one of the top filters for two reasons," she says. "It clears your skin and it makes your eyes huge."

There are thousands of distortion filters available on major social platforms, with names like La Belle, Natural Beauty, and Boss Babe. Even the goofy Big Mouth on Snapchat, one of social media's most popular filters, is made with distortion effects.

In October 2019, Facebook banned distortion effects because of "public debate about potential negative impact." Awareness of body dysmorphia was rising, and a filter called FixMe, which allowed users to mark up their faces as a cosmetic surgeon might, had sparked a surge of criticism for encouraging plastic surgery. But in August 2020, the effects were re-released with a new policy banning filters that explicitly promoted surgery. Effects that resize facial features, however, are still allowed. (When asked about the decision, a spokesperson directed me to Facebook's press release from that time.)

When the effects were re-released, Rocha decided to take a stand and began posting condemnations of body shaming online. She committed to stop using deformation effects herself unless they are clearly humorous or dramatic rather than beautifying and says she didn't want to "be responsible" for the harmful effects some filters were having on women: some, she says, have looked into getting plastic surgery that makes them look like their filtered self.

"I wish I was wearing a filter right now"

Krista Crotty is a clinical education specialist at the Emily Program, a leading center on eating disorders and mental health based in St. Paul, Minnesota. Much of her job over the past five years has focused on educating patients about how to consume media in a healthier way. She says that when patients present themselves differently online and in person, she sees an increase in anxiety. "People are putting up information about themselves-whether it's size, shape, weight, whatever-that isn't anything like what they actually look like," she says. "In between that authentic self and digital self lives a lot of anxiety, because it's not who you really are. You don't look like the photos that have been filtered."

"There's just somewhat of a validation when you're meeting that standard, even if it's only for a picture."

For young people, who are still working out who they are, navigating between a digital and authentic self can be particularly complicated, and it's not clear what the long-term consequences will be.

"Identity online is kind of like an artifact, almost," says Claire Pescott, the researcher from the University of South Wales. "It's a kind of projected image of yourself."

Pescott's observations of children have led her to conclude that filters can have a positive impact on them. "They can kind of try out different personas," she explains. "They have these 'of the moment' identities that they could change, and they can evolve with different groups."

A screenshot from the Instagram Effects gallery. These are some of the top filters in the "selfies" category.

But she doubts that all young people are able to understand how filters affect their sense of self. And she's concerned about the way social media platforms grant immediate validation and feedback in the form of likes and comments. Young girls, she says, have particular difficulty differentiating between filtered photos and ordinary ones.

Pescott's research also revealed that while children are now often taught about online behavior, they receive "very little education" about filters. Their safety training "was linked to overt physical dangers of social media, not the emotional, more nuanced side of social media," she says, "which I think is more dangerous."

Bailenson expects that we can learn about some of these emotional unknowns from established VR research. In virtual environments, people's behavior changes with the physical characteristics of their avatar, a phenomenon called the Proteus effect. Bailenson found, for example, that people who had taller avatars were more likely to behave confidently than those with shorter avatars. "We know that visual representations of the self, when used in a meaningful way during social interactions, do change our attitudes and behaviors," he says.

But sometimes those actions can play on stereotypes. A well-known study from 1988 found that athletes who wore black uniforms were more aggressive and violent while playing sports than those wearing white uniforms. And this translates to the digital world: one recent study showed that video game players who used avatars of the opposite sex actually behaved in a way that was gender stereotypical.

Bailenson says we should expect to see similar behavior on social media as people adopt masks based on filtered versions of their own faces, rather than entirely different characters. "The world of filtered video, in my opinion-and we haven't tested this yet-is going to behave very similarly to the world of filtered avatars," he says.

Selfie regulation

Considering the power and pervasiveness of filters, there is very little hard research about their impact-and even fewer guardrails around their use.

I asked Bailenson, who is the father of two young girls, how he thinks about his daughters' use of AR filters. "It's a real tough one," he says, "because it goes against everything that we're taught in all of our basic cartoons, which is 'Be yourself.'"

Bailenson also says that playful use is different from real-time, constant augmentation of ourselves, and understanding what these different contexts mean for kids is important.

"Even though we know it's not real... We still have that aspiration to look that way."

What few regulations and restrictions there are on filter use rely on companies to police themselves. Facebook's filters, for example, have to go through an approval process that, according to the spokesperson, uses "a combination of human and automated systems to review effects as they are submitted for publishing." They are reviewed for certain issues, such as hate speech or nudity, and users are also able to report filters, which then get manually reviewed.

The company says it consults regularly with expert groups, such as the National Eating Disorders Association and the JED Foundation, a mental-health nonprofit.

"We know people may feel pressure to look a certain way on social media, and we're taking steps to address this across Instagram and Facebook," said a statement from Instagram. "We know effects can play a role, so we ban ones that clearly promote eating disorders or that encourage potentially dangerous cosmetic surgery procedures... And we're working on more products to help reduce the pressure people may feel on our platforms, like the option to hide like counts."

Facebook and Snapchat also label filtered photos to show that they've been transformed-but it's easy to get around the labels by simply applying the edits outside of the apps, or by downloading and reuploading a filtered photo.

Labeling might be important, but Pescott says she doesn't think it will dramatically improve an unhealthy beauty culture online.

"I don't know whether it would make a huge amount of difference, because I think it's the fact we're seeing it, even though we know it's not real. We still have that aspiration to look that way," she says. Instead, she believes that the images children are exposed to should be more diverse, more authentic, and less filtered.

There's another concern, too, especially since the majority of users are very young: the amount of biometric data that TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook have collected through these filters. Though both Facebook and Snapchat say they do not use filter technology to collect personally identifiable data, a review of their privacy policies shows that they do indeed have the right to store data from the photographs and videos on the platforms. Snapchat's policy says that snaps and chats are deleted from its servers once the message is opened or expires, but stories are stored longer. Instagram stores photo and video data as long as it wants or until the account is deleted; Instagram also collects data on what users see through its camera.

Meanwhile, these companies continue to concentrate on AR. In a speech made to investors in February 2021, Snapchat co-founder Evan Spiegel said "our camera is already capable of extraordinary things. But it is augmented reality that's driving our future", and the company is "doubling down" on augmented reality in 2021, calling the technology "a utility".

And while both Facebook and Snapchat say that the facial detection systems behind filters don't connect back to the identity of users, it's worth remembering that Facebook's smart photo tagging feature-which looks at your pictures and tries to identify people who might be in them-was one of the earliest large-scale commercial uses of facial recognition. And TikTok recently settled for $92 million in a lawsuit that alleged the company was misusing facial recognition for ad targeting. A spokesperson from Snapchat said "Snap's Lens product does not collect any identifiable information about a user and we can't use it to tie back to, or identify, individuals."

And Facebook in particular sees facial recognition as part of it's AR strategy. In a January 2021 blog post titled "No Looking Back," Andrew Bosworth, the head of Facebook Reality Labs, wrote: "It's early days, but we're intent on giving creators more to do in AR and with greater capabilities." The company's planned release of AR glasses is highly anticipated, and it has already teased the possible use of facial recognition as part of the product.

In light of all the effort it takes to navigate this complex world, Sophia and Veronica say they just wish they were better educated about beauty filters. Besides their parents, no one ever helped them make sense of it all. "You shouldn't have to get a specific college degree to figure out that something could be unhealthy for you," Veronica says.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beauty filters are changing the way young girls see themselves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to Content The most widespread use of augmented reality isn't in gaming: it's the face filters on social media. The result? A mass experiment on girls and young women. Veronica started using filters to edit pictures of herself on social media when she was 14 years old.

# data[].attributes.body
The word bias is one that we have probably heard a lot through our life, but what does bias mean in the media? The definition of bias is having an unfair or unreasonable judgement based on your own beliefs or values. In media this can obviously be very problematic because if you are being bias, you are not putting correct information out there. This is a problem for the viewers and audience, because if a news station is reporting what they believe if ethical and right, then you are not actually getting useful information.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/5 Unit 1: Chapter 2 concept: Mean world syndrome

# data[].attributes.subject
3/5 Unit 1: Chapter 2 concept: Mean world syndrome

# data[].attributes.body
Mean world syndrome is when someone sees violence or dangerous things in television or movies and believe that the outside world is more scary than it actually is. A great example of this in the media is the movie The Woman in the Window, which follows a woman that is afraid to leave her house due to her family dying in a car crash. When she tries to go outside, the world seems so overwhelming, bright, and loud that she faints. A personal example is that I notice myself being more cautious of my surroundings and have more 'what if this happens' thoughts in my head due to watching more crime related shows and movies.

# data[].attributes.body
This chart shows all of the news stations, and where they fall on a bias scale. This was really interesting to me because first of all I had no idea that there were that many news stations, which I know sounds dumb, but I just knew the more well known ones. Going off of that, I think that half of the people that look at this have no idea what the other stations are because certain news stations are so much more popular than others. I feel that this also fits into this chapter due to how many news sources are probably lacking viewers just due to not being a big enough company. Second, I think that it is really interesting how the majority of the news stations have some sort of bias. I understand that this is expected, but I was surprised to see so many sources in the side categories.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about a study that was conducted by Yale students. In this study, participants were collected that only watched Fox News as their news source, and were paid to watch CNN for a period of time. The results of the study stated that some of the participants had changed some of their beliefs because of watching a different news source. Most of these views were changed about Donald Trump. The article talks about how participants views of the president at the time in 2020 had changed due to seeing what he has been doing from a different news source. This study really shows that bias in media is real and that if you do not get information from multiple sources, then you may be just getting bias information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millions of Americans count right-leaning Fox News as their primary source of information about politics and current events. A new working paper co-authored by Yale political scientist Joshua Kalla presents evidence of the influence such partisan media outlets wield over people's attitudes on the major issues of the day.

For the study, Kalla and co-author David Broockman of the University of California-Berkeley, conducted an experiment in which they recruited a sample of regular Fox News viewers and paid a random subset of them to watch rival cable news network CNN from Aug. 31 through Sept. 25, 2020. They found that the people who switched to CNN for four weeks developed different views on a variety of issues, including President Donald Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the racial justice protests that followed the killing of George Floyd, than those who continued watching Fox News.

The researchers selected Fox News for the study, they said, because the incumbent president happened to be Republican.

Previous research has suggested that partisan media affects voting behavior, but it is unclear exactly how it influences people's views. The experiment provided evidence that partisan media outlets, by filtering out unflattering or negative information about their preferred ideological side, weaken the electorate's ability to evaluate the performance of elected leaders. It also found evidence that, by setting the news agenda through its coverage choices, partisan media strongly influences the issues its viewers deem most pressing.

"The people in our study are committed Republicans and active voters who liked Donald Trump and disliked CNN. Yet, being paid to watch CNN altered their views on several prominent issues," said Kalla, an assistant professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. "This is concerning because it suggests that, by providing viewers a biased set of facts through its framing and coverage decisions, partisan media undermines our ability to hold elected officials accountable."

The researchers randomly divided a sample of 763 regular Fox news viewers into a 304-person treatment group, in which individuals were paid $15 per hour to watch CNN, and a 459-member control group that was not incentivized to watch the news network. Members of the treatment group watched CNN for an average of 5.8 hours per week during the study period. The researchers enforced compliance through a series of quizzes on CNN's primetime coverage that participants were paid $10 a pop to take.

They focused the study on Fox News because President Trump, a Republican, was the incumbent president heading into the 2020 election, Kalla explained. Future studies conducted with a Democratic incumbent in office should focus on regular viewers of more left-leaning cable news networks, such as CNN or MSNBC, he added.

The researchers performed a transcript analysis of the content of each networks' primetime broadcasts, documenting significant differences in the issues and events they covered during the study period with Fox News far more likely to report facts favorable to Republicans and CNN likely to do the same concerning Democrats. For example, CNN devoted substantially more broadcast time than Fox News to the pandemic's severity and Trump's failure to control it. By contrast, Fox News coverage consistently downplayed the pandemic as a public health threat and emphasized Trump's efforts to protect Americans from the virus, according to the study.

At the same time, their analysis found, Fox News focused its coverage on the racial unrest that gripped the United States in the summer of 2020, consistently indicating that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party supported the protestors' tactics and demands. Both networks covered voting by mail but approached the issue from opposing perspectives with CNN describing it as largely secure and Fox News suggesting it was vulnerable to fraud.

Three waves of follow-up surveys captured the opinions of people who'd switched to CNN and those who continued watching Fox News, exposing significant differences between the two groups. For example, participants who watched CNN were 11 percentage points less likely than the Fox News viewers to believe that it is more important for the president to focus on violent protests than the COVID-19 pandemic. They were six points more likely to believe that many foreign countries were more effective than the United States at controlling the coronavirus. The switchers were six percentage points less likely to believe that then-candidate Joe Biden supported eliminating all funding for the police. They were seven percentage points more likely to support voting by mail and nine percentage points less likely to agree that mail-in voting would generate widespread fraud.

The people who switched to CNN became more negative in their appraisals of Trump, including his management of the pandemic, his intelligence, and his honesty, according to the study. Switching to CNN also made people more aware of bias in Fox News' coverage. For example, the switchers were less likely to agree that "If Donald Trump did something bad, Fox News would discuss it."

However, the study showed the people who watched CNN did not become more positive in their evaluations of Biden or change their partisan identifications. A final survey, conducted two months after the incentivized period, offered little evidence that participants had continued watching CNN regularly. Many of the effects of watching CNN on their views and attitudes dissipated over time, the study found.

"Our study shows that Fox News doesn't simply reinforce beliefs that its viewers already hold, it also feeds them a biased set of facts that leaves them with a warped understanding of factual reality," said Broockman, an associate professor of political science at UC-Berkeley. "That many of our participants' attitudes shifted back to their preferred ideological perspective after they stopped watching CNN suggests that partisan media serves to replenish people's partisan loyalties and political beliefs, giving it formidable power over our discourse."

The full working paper is available online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Partisan media? Cable viewers shift attitudes after changing the channel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of Americans count right-leaning Fox News as their primary source of information about politics and current events. A new working paper co-authored by Yale political scientist Joshua Kalla presents evidence of the influence such partisan media outlets wield over people's attitudes on the major issues of the day.

# data[].attributes.headline
2/19 Unit 2 Chapter 3 concept: short head

# data[].attributes.subject
2/19 Unit 2 Chapter 3 concept: short head

# data[].attributes.body
The term short head means when a company produces a small number of a product, rather than selling a normal amount. This significantly can increase profit because the item can then be looked at as 'hard to find'. An example of this that I can think of is Nike. Usually when Nike releases new type of Dunks or Jordans, they will only release a certain number, meaning they will not always be on the shelves. Since people know there is only a certain amount that is going to be released, Nike can get away with putting insanely high prices, knowing people that they will sell.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was really informative and interesting. All of the trends talked about didn't surprise me, and made total sense for the new year. The first trend talked about was how influencers will continue to influence, and I can agree with this. Especially since there are so many different social media platforms now with various types of influencers that individuals look up to. The next trend talked about was how the local market will continue to dominate. This one made me happy, due to how badly local businesses were affected during the covid shut downs. A spike in searches for places with 'near me' at the end have been continuing, and I personally do this 95% of the time I'm looking for something. This year brands are said to be more invested in marketing which I feel like somewhat relates to influencers. I feel that since influencers are so big right now and constantly reviewing things and influencing people to buy products, that brands are going to want to up their marketing game for more profit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CMSWire's customer experience (CXM) channel gathers the latest news, advice and analysis about the evolving landscape of customer-first marketing, commerce and digital experience design.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top Marketing Trends You Should Watch in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CMSWire's customer experience (CXM) channel gathers the latest news, advice and analysis about the evolving landscape of customer-first marketing, commerce and digital experience design.

# data[].attributes.headline
2/19 Unit 2 Chapter 15 concept: The Bok Model 

# data[].attributes.subject
2/19 Unit 2 Chapter 15 concept: The Bok Model 

# data[].attributes.body
The Bok model is a serious of questions and thinks to think about created by Sissela Bok that you can ask yourself for ethical reasons. This model can be really helpful when needing to determine what is right and what is wrong. The model makes up of three parts: 1. consult you conscience: how do you feel about the current action? 2. seek alternatives/consult experts: is there another way? 3. have a discussion (imaginary or real) with the individuals involved: how will this effect others? These questions are a great assistance when you need to make decisions, because it prevents you from just thinking about yourself, and haves you consider all possibilities. This is particularly useful in journalism so you do not act before you think everything through.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/5 Unit 3 chapter 4 concept: e-book readers

# data[].attributes.subject
3/5 Unit 3 chapter 4 concept: e-book readers

# data[].attributes.body
E-book readers are electronic devices that have online libraries with thousands of books. The most popular one today is Amazon's kindle. E-book readers are definitely very innovative for the reading community, but it also has a downside. Yes they are great because they are thin and convent to take on the go, but what is it doing to bookstores? E-book readers have the opportunity to really harm bookstore earnings due to how simple and easy it is to purchase a book from the comfort of your home. I think that the most defining factor in people viewing e book readers as better is because of how quick you can get a book, which isn't the case if you have to physically go to the bookstore. With that being said, it affects the bookstore negatively, but most times it probably affects the author positively, due to more sales. So yes e book readers are nice and easy, but they also take away money and business from local bookstores.

# data[].attributes.body
Another recent example of fake news is when the covid pandemic was occurring. In this article put out in 2021, it talks about how many people are believing the false information and fake news that is being spread. In early 2020, when covid was just starting, it was a meme online and was said that you could only get it from drinking corona beers, and everyone thought it was fake, until the disease was actually very real. With such a big pandemic that affected the world, this gave so many opportunities for fake news to be spread. During this time the president even spread false news, by ultimately blaming china and calling it the "Chinese virus". This obviously caused a huge uproar, and people were even scared to be around people with Chinese heritage. This lead to racisms against Chinese people and caused their businesses to get hurt, as well as their morals and feelings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most People Who Trust Network and Local Television, CNN, MSNBC and NPR on COVID-19 Believe Little or No Misinformation; Larger Shares Who Trust Newsmax, One American News, and Fox News Hold Many Misconceptions

More than three quarters (78%) of U.S. adults either believe or aren't sure about at least one of eight false statements about the COVID-19 pandemic or COVID-19 vaccines, with unvaccinated adults and Republicans among those most likely to hold misconceptions, a new KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor report shows.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of unvaccinated adults believe or are unsure about at least half of the eight false statements - more than three times the share of vaccinated adults (19%). Nearly half (46%) of Republicans believe or are unsure about at least half the statements, three times the share of Democrats (14%).

The findings highlight a major challenge for efforts to accurately communicate the rapidly evolving science about the pandemic when false and ambiguous information can spread quickly, whether inadvertently or deliberately, through social media, polarized news sources and other outlets.

The new report assesses the public's awareness of, and belief in, a range of "myths" about the disease and the vaccines to prevent it. The most common misconceptions include:

* Most (60%) adults say they've heard that the government is exaggerating the number of COVID-19 deaths by counting deaths due to other factors and either believe it to be true (38%) or aren't sure if it is true or false (22%).

* Four in 10 (39%) say they've heard pregnant women should not get the COVID-19 vaccine and believe it to be true (17%) or aren't sure (22%).

* Three in 10 (31%) say they've heard that the vaccine has been shown to cause infertility and either believe it (8%) or aren't sure if it's true (23%).

Many people believe or are unsure about several of the eight false statements, including about a third (32%) who believe or are unsure about at least half of them.
How Does Trust in News Sources Line Up with Misconceptions?
People's trusted news sources are correlated with their belief in COVID-19 misinformation. At least a third of those who trust information from CNN, MSNBC, network news, NPR, and local television news do not believe any of the eight false statements, while small shares (between 11% and 16%) believe or are unsure about at least four of the eight false statements.

Larger shares of those who trust COVID-19 information from leading conservative news sources believe misinformation, with nearly 4 in 10 of those who trust Fox News (36%) and One America News (37%), and nearly half (46%) of those who trust Newsmax, saying they believe or are unsure about at least half of the eight false statements.

Whether this is because people are exposed to misinformation from those news sources, or whether the types of people who choose those news sources are the same ones who are pre-disposed to believe certain types of misinformation for other reasons, is beyond the scope of the analysis.

Underscoring the self-selection that now occurs in the news sources people trust, Democrats trust COVID-19 information from network (72%) and local (66%) television, CNN (65%), MSNBC (56%) and NPR (51%). Republicans' most trusted news sources for COVID-19 information are Fox News (49%), local (34%) and network (25%) news, and Newsmax (22%).

Few adults say they trust social-media sources for information about COVID-19 such as YouTube (13%), Facebook (9%), Twitter (6%), and Instagram (5%). The group that is influenced by information they see on these platforms may be larger than the share that says they trust information they see there, as KFF surveys have previously found the share of adults who get information about COVID-19 vaccines from social media is nearly as large as the share who get information from cable, network, and local TV news.

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, the KFF Vaccine Monitor survey was conducted from October 14-24 among a nationally representative random digit dial telephone sample of 1,519 adults. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish by landline (168) and cell phone (1,351). The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.
The KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor is an ongoing research project tracking the public's attitudes and experiences with COVID-19 vaccinations. Using a combination of surveys and qualitative research, this project tracks the dynamic nature of public opinion as vaccine development and distribution unfold, including vaccine confidence and acceptance, information needs, trusted messengers and messages, as well as the public's experiences with vaccination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19 Misinformation is Ubiquitous: 78% of the Public Believes or is Unsure About At Least One False Statement, and Nearly a Third Believe At Least Four of Eight False Statements Tested

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most People Who Trust Network and Local Television, CNN, MSNBC and NPR on COVID-19 Believe Little or No Misinformation; Larger Shares Who Trust Newsmax, One American News, and Fox News Hold Many Misconceptions More than three quarters (78%) of U.S. adults either believe or aren't sure about at least one of eight false statements about ...

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this term for this weeks unit because I believe that in these past couple years fake news has been a problem. Fake news is considered false information, satirical, clickbait, etc. The most relevant instance of fake news that I can think about is with the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a time of panic for the whole world, which meant it was so much easier for people to spread fake news and make it believable. On top of this at this time Donald Trump was the president, who was also spreading fake news as well. In todays day and age we need to be very careful with what we read and believe on the internet, because the web is so big and gives almost anyone access to post their thoughts, which can lead to loads of mis information and just false information. With apps such as twitter and instagram giving all their users access to post whatever, really increases the chances of stumbling across fake news.

# data[].attributes.body
A connection to fake news that I made was to Fox News. Fox News is a very right winged news station, except, it is not even classified as news. Fox News is considered entertainment, but still deals out news, making most of it seem true to their viewers. An example of this is after Trump lost the election, and Fox News claimed that the election was rigged. This is insane that a news station would go on the air and state this opinion to the world, with no evidence to back it up. This just shows how completely bias Fox News is. When Trump won the election in 2016, CNN and liberal news stations did not accuse him of election fraud. A new station is allowed to have their own beliefs, but when the beliefs get in the way of spreading correct information, then that is an issue. And that is exactly what Fox News did.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/5 Unit 3 chapter 5 concept: photojournalism

# data[].attributes.subject
3/5 Unit 3 chapter 5 concept: photojournalism

# data[].attributes.body
"A picture is worth thousands of words" This quote speaks for itself. Photojournalism is journalism through photographs, and I think that it is very important in the media world. Photos in journalism add so much to the story, because you are able to get a look at what is being talked about. Journalists could go to third world countries and take a photo of the conditions they live in, and upload it without ant captioning, and the message would get across. This is because if the reader is able to visibly see the problem or event talked about, it is more likely to bring up emotions for the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
Wow. My first reaction to this article was pure shock. A couple years ago when I was in middle school, I remember my 8th grade teacher talking to us about banned and challenged books, and she thought that it was outrageous some of the things that were being challenged. After reading this article I can completely see where she was coming from. Seeing that book titles such as, The Hate U Give was being challenged just made me upset. Most of the books that society and others are looking to challenge or ban are books that the world needs to read. Yes these books probably aren't pretty to read, but it is the reality of our world. The Hate U Give is a perfect example of how so many African Americans are racially profiled and suffer from police brutality, so it is very disappointing to see that it is considered a challenged book. I understand where so parents and people are coming from when not wanting their children to read these books, but by reading these books we are also learning how the world around us isn't perfect, and that there are many things that need to be done.