Selective Democracy (April 4th)

  The more we use the internet, the more we become selective about what we choose to see while surfing the internet.  Along these lines, we use internet to acquire our news.  The internet can be a helpful source of news, however because of the selective nature of the internet, we are able to choose what we see or don't see.  So how is this a problem?  Why is it a problem for people to see only what they want to see?  Well it's a problem for our global awareness.  If we selectively absorb news, we will only learn information that we choose to learn from.  It is important to get all of our 'servings' of news.  Using the example of 'servings' refers to looking at news consumption like food consumption.  Of course we don't want to eat our vegetables (refering to news we don't want to watch) we still have too.  News is just like food in the sense that you need a balanced diet.  If we only wish to receive news form celebrities then our minds and social awareness will diminish.  However, if we watch a balanced diet of news, we will understand more about the world around us and the important issues.   Also the information we tend to read is not only relevant to what we want to hear... it tells us what we want to hear.  It is dangerous because you may never see both sides of the story if you refuse to read both sides.  This is a problem because extremists will only read up on stories that fortify their arguments.  All in all, selective news watching/reading is dangerous because it malnourished our brains and fosters ethnocentric views because of lack of exposure from anything we don't want to see.

Copywrongs

    In the digital age of technology ideas spread like wildfire.  With the use of constant web connectivity, almost limitless information can be gathered.  Along with this information includes artistic forms of expression such as music and artwork.  Many copyright laws apply to forms of artistic expression and according to the government copyrights were created to keep the free market economy moving and inspire innovation.  Copyright laws were never intended for someone to be set for life financially after writing a single song or creating something.  With this in mind, copy right laws state the owner of a copyright gets those loyalties up until 70 years after their death.  I feel like in current society copyright laws are necessary for artists and inventors to make money.  However, due to the rate in which our society as a whole and as individuals process information, copyright laws should be shortened after death.  The government created copyright laws to inspire innovation and prevent inventors from becoming lazy and only living off of one thing.  Our countries forefathers would be upset to see grandchildren living off of legacies of one hit wonder bands.  In other words, copyright laws are just too long and need to be adjusted to the digital age.  These laws were implicated to ensure success of an overall market/economy and not just so we can sue each other for developing similar ideas.