Each One Teach One

Netflix DVD-By-Mail

Today, Netflix is one of the most recognizable streaming platforms in the world. Many people use it to watch movies, television shows, documentaries, and original content whenever they want. However, Netflix wasn't always the streaming service we know today. It originally started as an DVD rental company and gradually developed into a major part of the entertainment industry. The evolution of Netflix shows how technology can change when it is created to solve a problem and continues to adapt to the needs of its users. 

The History: 

Netflix was founded in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Mare Randolph in California. The idea for Netflix was connected to a problem with traditional video rental stores. At the time, people who wanted to watch a movie typically had to drive to a video rental store, find the movie they wanted, rent it and return it by a specific deadline. If they forgot to return the movie on time they would receive a late fee. 

This experience helped inspire Hastings and Randolph to think about a more convenient way for people to rent movies. Instead of requiring customers to visit a physical store, Netflix created a system where people could order movies online and have DVDs delivered directly to their homes. This became Netflix's original business model. 

Logos

The DVD-by-mail system made renting movies much easier for customers. Netflix eventually became known for its subscription model, which provided customers with a convenient alternative to traditional movie rentals. 

However, Netflix didn't stop with DVDs. As internet technology developed, the company adapted to the changing way people consumed entertainment. In 2007, Netflix introduced streaming, allowing customers to watch movies and television shows instantly over the internet. This was an important turning point because customers no longer had to wait for a physical DVD to arrive. 

Netflix continued to evolve by producing its own original movies and television shows. Instead of simply providing content made by other companies, Netflix became a content creator itself. 

The Impact: 

Netflix has had an significant impact on the way people watch entertainment. One of the biggest problems it helped solve was convenience. 

Netflix helped make on-demand entertainment a normal part of everyday life. Traditional television often required viewers to watch a show at a specific time and on a specific channel. With streaming, viewers choose what they wanted to watch and when they wanted to watch it. This gave audiences much more control over their entertainment. 

Netflix also successfully influenced the larger entertainment industry. Other streaming services, including Disney+, Hulu and Max because increasingly popular as streaming became a major way for people to consume movies and television. This created more competition between entertainment companies and gave viewers more choices. 

At the same time, Netflix has had some negative effects. The shift towards streaming contributed to the decline of traditional video rental stores because people had fewer reasons to visit physical rental locations. 

Netflix and other streaming platforms have also contributed to increased screen time, since large amounts of entertainment can be accessed instantly. In addition, having many different streaming services can become expensive because viewers may need multiple subscriptions to access the shows and movies they want. 

Antiwar in Media?

After reading Antiwar.com, I think antiwar perspectives should be much more available through mainstream media. Antiwar.com covers topics that I don't always see receiving the same amount of attention in mainstream news, such as the financial costs of war, civilian casualties, the effects of U.S. military intervention and whether military action actually makes the United States safer. 

An example on the site that I found is it has focused on the costs of the Iran war, including reports about Pentagon spending, U.S. military casualties, and the possibility of the conflict expanding. It also has published arguments questioning the U.S. involvement in conflicts involving Ukraine, Yemen, Gaza and Iran. 

Another thing that stood out was Antiwar.com doesn't only criticize individual wars. It questions the larger idea of foreign policies. The website says its purpose is to promote non-interventionism and challenge the justifications for military intervention. It also argues that the public should hear perspectives that challenge what it calls mainstream media narrative. 

I think these perspectives should be easier to find in mainstream media. That doesn't mean mainstream news should agree with Antiwar.com or only present an antiwar position. Instead people should be able to hear both arguments about whether military intervention is necessary and what its consequences could be. If these perspective are mostly found on specialized websites, someone who only watches major news networks might never come across these arguments. 

This also connects to the First Amendment because it protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. People have the right to criticize wars and government foreign policy. The government cannot simply silence someone because they oppose a war. At the same time the First Amendment doesn't require every news organization to give every viewpoint the same amount of coverage. Due to this I think the issue is less about government censorship and more about which voices receive enough attention to become part of mainstream conversation. 

Overall, antiwar voices should be more visible because war is such an important issue that affects people's lives, taxes, safety and the country's foreign policy. Having access to different perspectives allows people to think critically and make their own decisions instead of only hearing the arguments that receive the most attention 

Privacy Online & Off

After watching TED Talks by Catherine Crump and Christopher Soghoian, I came away with a growing concern about how much information governments and other organization can collect about ordinary people. While technology has made society safer and more connected in many ways, these talks highlighted how the same tools can be used to monitor citizens in ways that many people do not understand. 

One of the most alarming points was how surveillance technologies that were originally developed for military use are now finding their way into local communities. According to Crump, law enforcement agencies are increasingly using technologies that allow them to gather massive amounts of information about citizens as they go about their daily lives. 

What struck me the most is that a person does not have to be suspected of a crime for information to be collected. 

For example, automatic license plate readers can track where vehicles travel and record images of people getting in and out of their cars. In some cases, these systems can even capture people near their homes or with their children. The result is that the government can build a detailed picture of a person's daily activities, habits, and relationships. 

Crump also explained that surveillance can reveal highly personal information. By tracking locations, it may become possible to determine whether someone attends therapy sessions, Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, religious services or other private activities. When information like this is collected on a large scale it allows the government to know far more about citizens than many people realize. 

The use of cell phone tracking technology raises similar concerns. Cell towers can help identify where a person is located, while devices known as Stingrays can send tracking signals to locate phones inside homes. What concerns me is that these tools do not just affect the person being targeted. If law enforcement searches an entire neighborhood to find one individual, information about many innocent people can be collected as well. 

These practices seem to challenge the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which is intended to protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. When large amounts of information are gathered without people knowing it, it become difficult to determine where the line between public safety and personal privacy should be drawn. 

Christopher Soghoian's Ted Talk expanded on these concerns by focusing on communications technology. For more than a century, telephone companies have assisted governments with wiretapping. Originally, much of this process was handled manually, but advances in technology allowed surveillance capabilities to become built directly into communication networks. 

As telephone and communication systems evolved, they gained the ability to collect information from conversations between family members, coworkers, doctors and many others. While this may provide law enforcement with investigative tools, it also creates significant risks. 

One major concern is that surveillance systems can become targets themselves. 

Soghoian pointed out that if governments can access these systems, other governments, hackers, or malicious actors may also attempt to gain access. The more information that is collected and stored, the greater the potential consequences if that information falls into the wrong hands. 

I found it interesting that technology companies eventually began implementing default protections that limited access to user information. However, according to Soghoian, governments were unhappy with losing access to emails, calls, and text messages that they previously expected to obtain. 

This raises another important question about privacy rights. If citizens can be compelled to hand over large amounts of personal information through surveillance systems, some may argue that the protections associated with the Fifth Amendment are being weakened. The concern is not just about what information is collected today, but what could happen to that information tomorrow. 

These issues affect all of us, including our friends and family. Most people carry phones, drive cars and communicate electronically every day. To protect ourselves, we should pay attention to privacy settings, support technologies that safeguard personal information, and stay informed about how our data is being collected and used. 

In my view, the government should focus on balancing public safety with individual freedoms. Security is important, but privacy is a fundamental part of free society. After watching these TED Talks, I am left wondering whether the convenience of modern technology is slowly costing us more privacy than we realize. 

___________________________________________

AI DISCLAIMER: The post was a collaboration using Copilot AI. I took detailed notes while watching two TedTalks and listening to Professor Smith in class. There was active note taking and overall engagement from the class. In addition to facts that I learned, I emphasized my own reactions and opinions while watching and listening. I then asked Copilot to help me improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I then asked Copilot to help me shape the text into a blog post format. After reviewing the text I added additional links, images, and captions. 

____________________________________________

Eight Values of Free Expression

 

    After reading the Eight Values of Free Expression, the one I felt like stood out to me the most was Stable Change. To live in a world where a person in society cannot voice their opinion about a situation that makes them feel upset or angry, is a world of violence and destruction. The Stable Change value helps support the need for citizens to voice their opinions, it helps support the need for society to “vent” in order to keep a stable country. Allowing people to express themselves and voice what they feel helps society come together and also helps the government understand issues that need to be looked at. The Stable Change allows us to realize that the reason behind venting is in the government’s self-interest so they can keep the people safe by monitoring dangerous groups. The government uses the protest and free speech as a way to understand the frustration more, they want to hear from society.

    A new story that relates to the concept of Stable Change is an article from October 18, 2025, “As ‘No Kings’ protest decry Trump, surveillance worries emerge.” The article discusses the nationwide “No Kings” protest, where people came together to publicly express their disagreement with the Trump administration. It was stated that it was expected to have around 2,600 rallies across all 50 states. The article discusses concerns about government surveillance, which includes the possible use of facial recognition, drones, phone monitoring and social media monitoring.

    The protests provided citizens with an opportunity to openly express their anger and political dissatisfaction. The idea of Stable Change is allowing people to “vent” their frustrations can help maintain stability because citizens have a legal and public outlet for their concerns. This protest also demonstrated how governments can observe public dissatisfaction and learn what issues are causing frustration.

In this case, government agencies were reportedly monitoring some protest activity, this illustrates how public expressions can provide information about groups and issues that authorities may consider important. Although, the article does also raise the concerns that too much government surveillance could discourage people from exercising their right to peacefully protest. This article helps demonstrate both sides of Stable Change: allowing people to express dissatisfaction can make their opinions visible, while excessive monitoring of that expression may make people less willing to speak openly.

Stable Change seemed to be the most important to me because I believe that everyone deserves to be able to speak freely about what they believe. But I also understand that part of being afraid of the power the government could have and what could potentially affect you. To be able to voice your opinion without the fear of the government watching you is a world we will never be able to live in. The government does need to monitor certain things society is putting out on the internet. If someone puts on the internet that they are going to potentially hurt a group of people with extreme violence I think that is when it is necessary for the government to step in.

From Scrolling to Stories

TikTok  

One of the main sources of media that I find news on is TikTok. TikTok is able to help me find news from certain accounts coming up on my for you page, which then allows me to read comments and learn some more background about certain stories. Not only news accounts are spreading information, other ways to gain news and new information is from influencers and content creators who share and post things they are passionate about. This is a way for people to spread awareness or get more information about a story or topic.

YikYak

YikYak is a good source of information for college students like myself because it specifically is designed for you to see information about your school only. Students are able to upload anything that will be anonymous, which gives people more confidence in spreading information. Although some stuff will be jokes or rumors you will still most likely find something out that is happening before the school addresses it. YikYak also helps with finding out if professors or certain classes are easy or hard and what to expect from professors teaching that class.

Google

Google is a place I use probably everyday. Whenever I have a question about someone big or little google will give me the answer and links to my questions which is super helpful. I will use it for questions about what words mean, ways to create better ways to study and just a bunch of random other things. Google is good for personal use too, if I need to send my mom information about something I will look for a link on google, if I’m trying to find out where a movie is streaming i’ll use google, and closing times for restaurants as well.

Instagram

Instagram is a great way for me to gather information because I can follow accounts I trust to show me accurate information. Even though I can gain news from different news sources I will also follow influencers and celebrities, which helps me gather news on new projects that might be coming out soon, if a certain celebrity has passed away. I mostly use Instagram to keep up with friends who I live far away from and to just keep up with their lives, while also gathering information about certain things going on in the world.

FoxNews

FoxNews is one of the main new sites I use because it focuses mainly on politics and what is going on in the US and other countries. This site I use is mainly because it's where most of my family gets their information about politics. I mostly use FoxNews when I want to find something out about what the president has been doing or certain wars that have been going on, but it is usually my last source of media I will go to. 

Supreme Court Reflection

Supreme Court Reflection

While watching a video about the U.S. Supreme Court, I was struck by just how much influence this institution has on the American legal system. The Court consists of nine justices, and their decisions can affect laws and policies across the entire country. One detail that stood out to me is that all of this work takes place in a public courtroom. The Supreme Court is often described as the most powerful court in the United States, and seeing how openly the process operates was interesting to learn about.

Chef Justices In History

The Court's main responsibility is interpreting a document that is now more than 200 years old. Even though the document was written long ago, it continues to shape decisions that impact people today.

I also learned that Supreme Court justices serve for a long time. On average, they remain on the Court for about 16 years. Because of these lengthy terms, the individuals selected for these positions can influence the direction of the Court for many years. Another important part of the process is how justices are chosen. The president who is in office appoints them, making each appointment a significant decision with long-term consequences.

Something else that surprised me was the number of cases the Court receives. The Supreme Court is presented with around 100 new cases each week, yet it accepts only a small number of them. Rather than hearing every case, the justices vote on which ones deserve review. From what I learned, the Court often focuses on determining whether lower courts handled a case correctly. If the justices believe a case requires further consideration, they can vote to accept it and hear the arguments themselves.

After watching this video, I came away with a better appreciation for how selective, influential, and powerful the U.S. Supreme Court really is.

______________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using Microsoft Copilot. I took detailed notes while watching a 20- minute video about the history of the Supreme Court. In addition to facts that I learned, I emphasized my own reactions and opinions while watching. I then asked Copilot to help me improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation. I then asked Copilot to help me shape the text into a blog post format. After reviewing the text, I added links to related resources and appropriate images and captions.  

_______________________________________________________

WATCH THE VIDEO NOW