Thursday, March 31, 2016

A Breakdown of MY Filter Bubble

To show just how extreme The Filter Bubble can be, I broke down the top 3 forms of social media that I used the most, what effect The Filter Bubble could be having on my life because of it, and how my life could be altered if The Filter Bubble didn’t exist. I was shocked by some of the results…
The top three posts that were reoccurring on my Pinterest:
1.     Summer Clothes
2.     Make-Up
3.     Sorority Crafts
The Effect: Pinterest is the social media platform that I use the most, as I like to use my personal social media as a break from “the real world.” This is one platform that I don’t mind the bubble on, as I specifically go on it to get outfit ideas, inspiration for my make-up, and crafts to make for my “little sister” in my sorority.
In An Alternate Universe: In another world, I could be seeing a lot of photography tips, hacks on training a dog, or inspiration for a garden that I don’t have. Maybe it would inspire me to take up a new hobby or purchase a pet, but as I said, I really do think that the bubble enhances the Pinterest experience.
Top three themes that I found on my Facebook:
1.     Buzzfeed articles that had to do with being a college student
2.     Religious posts (all Christian)
3.     Ads for Johnson’s baby lotion (2)
The Effect: As a college student, I like to think that the rest of the world sees things as I do, and a lot of the times, I feel that way. I didn’t realize that it could be because of the only articles that I read are from Buzzfeed that are only relatable to college students. I am involved in a Christian club on campus, and my faith has always been very important to me, so I enjoy reading articles that relate to college kids’ spirituality. Lastly, I was racking my brain as to why these Johnson’s baby lotion ads came up, as I haven’t been looking into unscented lotion or multivitamins. Then I remembered that Johnson’s made a lotion that all of the softball moms on my sister’s team raved about, that was supposed to smell great and keep mosquitos away. I was on the hunt for it last summer as it was sold out in stores.
In An Alternate Universe: I would see the world through the lens of someone who is not a college student (and then be shocked that there is a world outside of UNL). I could be exposed to more religious practices other than just my own. As for the baby lotion…maybe I’d consider Aveeno?
The first 7 posts that popped up on my filter included:
1.     NHL (3)
2.     My favorite contestant from American Idol (2)
3.     My brother
4.     Johnson’s lotion advertisement
The Effect: Hockey practically runs my life. I work in the industry. My family billets players. The NHL network is the default channel at my parent’s house. Why would it not take over my social media? American Idol was on tonight, so I wasn’t shocked that the contestants were promoting themselves, and in the process, I became more of a fan of my favorite. I think it’s a part of siblings’ duties to like each other’s Instagram posts, so my brother and sister will generally always get a “like” from me. And of course, the lotion had to make an appearance again, because the Facebook ads just weren’t enough.

In An Alternate Universe: Maybe I would keep up with sports that I used to enjoy in high school more often if they were displayed on my feed. If I didn’t see my favorite AI contestant’s posts, I wouldn’t be thinking about how I hope that he wins even as I am doing this assignment right now. If my brother’s post didn’t show up, I wouldn’t have remembered to text him good luck at his baseball game tomorrow. Oh yeah. The lotion ad. I’ve already Googled Aveeno in hopes of cutting down on all of the Johnson’s that is embedded into my feeds.

The Filter Bubble

The Filter Bubble and the idea of algorithms forming what I see on my social media feeds is something that has always intrigued me. Algorithms control ads, website suggestions, and even what content I see on Netflix, online stores and even my own social media feeds. While this is something that's something I think about today, it was not something I thought about when I was in middle school or even high school. Social media like Myspace and Facebook was just a place to catch up with my friends, I assumed the platforms would always be showing what my friends are doing. 

Now with so many different platforms we're getting more information on our relatives and friends than ever. It only makes sense that the likes of Facebook and Twitter curate the most important stories or ideas that you consider interesting. For me the only platforms I primarily use are Facebook and Reddit. Twitter is only something I use for school or work. First, let's talk about Facebook. On my Facebook I have less than 400 friends so while that might not be a huge number, it would still be impossible for Facebook to keep me continuously updated on every single person. While I mainly use Facebook I'm actually not all that active on it.

I mostly use it for chatting so I rarely if ever make comments, like posts or even block anybody. So I think it's why I'm always getting a decent amount of diverse updates on my newsfeed. Specifically, with political related posts I'm getting shared stories on Bernie, Hillary as well as Trump. While I'm not a big fan of Trump I'm still getting likes and shared stories about him because I haven't been as active on Facebook as most people. I'm not going to lie, when people like Trump posts or share stories about him I start to question if I continue having them on my feed. There are a lot of things on my newsfeed that I don't like and that I strongly disagree with but because I haven't really been active on the platform I don't usually do anything about it. Also I feel like deleting someone just because they share different views is completely backwards. 

I agree with the TedTalk speaker we watched today that by curating your feed can lead to less discussion and pull people further apart. But the thing is just because I'm not going to delete the person because of their views it's not like I might start considering reading their article or even sharing it myself. Someone might share a pro-Trump article and while I won't take action on the post, I also wouldn't read it or try to see what the article was about either. So basically, yeah I see all types of posts on my newsfeed and even if I see something I disagree with, I won't unfollow them but I wouldn't give them the time of day either. 

I completely agree that curating our newsfeeds to the things we only want to see can lead to decline of dissoi logoi and more polarization. I also agree that it's completely problematic. How would any discussions happen? How would we stay informed? This especially pertains to staying informed and up to date on news. But, when it comes to entertainment I can see how something like this might be beneficial. Like one of the students in our class mentioning the Bleacher Report app. As a Husker fan I would like to stay up to date on players, stats and current games but I don't need to know what's happening with Duke.

So I'm sure algorithms like this have their pros and cons. When it's things like entertainment or even shopping I can see how it's beneficial. If I buy a Mario video game I would like to get suggestions or deals on upcoming Mario video games because clearly I like them if I spent money on it. But when it comes to news and staying informed I think it's much more beneficial to be engaged in all types of news and media. It helps to better discussion and know what's happening around the world. So the thing is while I might not delete someone on Facebook because of their views, I should try to be more active on Facebook. I should try to see why they would share or like that post. I think that's the best thing you can do to engage Dissoi Logoi more. 

Hilary Fails at Identifying with her Audience

The video above is the example of Hilary Clinton failing at a simple speaking concept. Rhetoricians use techniques such as identification and humor to appeal to their audiences. Using words and phrases that the folks in the audience use, makes the speaker seem relatable and trustworthy. Hilary Clinton used these tactics when speaking in South Carolina. She attempted a southern accent and discussed chicken and waffles which is likely a common southern dish. Hilary hoped that by doing this she could make it seem as though she is herself in the shoes of the southerners, however it came off as offensive and embarrassing for Hilary. Hilary has this reputation for “going with the crowd.” She often changes her views from her original standpoint to whatever is trending in society. When the public favors something, she suddenly too begins to favor it regardless if she was opposed before. An example of this is when in 2000 Hilary believed that marriage was between a man and a woman, whereas in the present she is supporting gay marriage. Some might argue that Hilary simply changed her mind or came to realization, however she had been standing strong behind her believe that marriage was strictly meant for a man and a woman up until her 50's, it is almost ridiculous to believe that after a few years she just suddenly decided what she had believed her whole life was wrong. In the next video we notice that Hilary seems to subtly mention that she is only currently for gay marriage in these political times but isn't committed.
For more of her contradictions watch this link:

If it weren't for Hilary's reputation, her attempt at appealing with the crowd might have been more of a success. If a rhetorician is careful not to mock an audience in their accent or lifestyle, then identifying with an audience can be extremely beneficial. As a member of the audience you are more likely to take interest in joining or agreeing with the speaker when the speaker notices and takes interest in the issues of the audience. 
On the other hand, an example of someone who does a successful job at appealing to their audience is Bernie Sanders. When he holds a rally and his audience is larger than expected, he makes a point of showing that he doesn't exclude anyone and makes his way to every person who came to see regardless if they didn't make it into the event building. Making a point to reach out to all his supporters is a real genuine way to appeal and win the hearts of his audience.
 As if there wasn't enough said about Hilary's poor treatment to her audiences, the last example of how Hilary Clinton fails at identifying with her listeners is when she tells is very intolerant of owning up to her own words. An African American girl was asked to leave after attempting to bring to light some of Hilary's insensitive remarks. The remark being addressed in the video is from when Hilary refers to millennials as "Super Predators who are to be brought to heel", when there is already too much abuse on the youth by our police departments. Here is the video: Hilary completely disregards her people and continues to preach about her own irrelevant concerns while ignoring the nasty words that she spoke. This, my friends, is a woman who perfectly expresses how NOT to appeal to your audience. To understand where the girl in the video was coming from, it's short but definitely worth seeing, watch the following: 

The Effect of the Filter Bubble

Since moving to Lincoln, Nebraska for college from a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona, my outlook on social media posts as a whole has changed immensely. I have recently noticed in the past couple months that my multiple media outlets have been tailored to my specific location and activities. My Facebook, Twitter, even Spotify ads have focused on the events and people based out of Arizona. The advertisements that play on my music streaming websites endorse the events going on in the Phoenix area: haunted houses, concerts, local businesses. The posts I see on Facebook are specifically tailored to show me the posts of my high school friends and family members. I am constantly "liking" and commenting on their posts and pictures, keeping tabs with them and showing my interest in their posts. This, in turn, has caused more of their posts and less of others' posts to show up on my newsfeed. This phenomenon has been coined as the "Filter Bubble" by the internet activist Eli Pariser.

Pariser explains the filter bubble as "being surrounded by only people you like and content that you agree with." This has all begun to happen due to the increase of websites using an algorithm to filter out the information or content that they do not think their users want to see. Pariser mentions in his TedTalk on the topic that a website has at least twenty seven tell-tale signals that they use to filter this algorithm, even if a user is not logged into an account. This can be anything from the type of computer you are using, to the type of internet signal you are using to access the site. In this article from MIT's Technology Review, the authors explain that because the algorithm is changing their search results based on the interests of the users, "they are more satisfied with them results." Many people have argued that the downfall to this algorithm system is that people are no longer experiencing differing opinions to their own, they are no longer being challenged while searching the web. The scientists at MIT argue that "challenging people with new ideas makes them generally more receptive to change." The use of the algorithm system, or filter bubble, limits the amount of differing ideas that internet users have to a certain topic, thus making them almost one-sided to a certain topic.

The filter bubble has taken a direct toll on my internet experience. I am not viewing the advertisements and posts from around Lincoln or in Nebraska. This limits my view of the new area that I am living in and limits my experiences.

Filter Bubble

          The past couple days in class I have learned a lot about algorithms and my “Filter Bubble.” I do not consider myself to be a very heavy user of Facebook; Twitter; and Instagram, but I do have an account with all them. Before this week I never thought about why I look at similar posts from people on social media before. I find that every time I log onto Facebook that I view almost the same accounts posts every time. Twitter and Instagram do not seem to have an algorithm like Facebook, but I notice now that they definitely have one.

            My social media is not very serious. I follow sports and funny accounts outside my friends and family. So I never encounter an opinion different from mine. I will follow the sports accounts to my favorite team and they will only every post good or breaking news about that team. Obviously my friends and family have similar opinions as mine outside a few. And I will unfollow some of the funny accounts if I do not find them humorous anymore or they become some sort of advertising page.

            I agree that the decline of dissoi logoi is a major cause of polarization. I think it is obvious that if people took the time to look at both sides of an argument with a serious look that we as a country would be less polarized making things less problematic. I do not think there is much of an advantage to being polarized. Why not learn both sides of an issue and understand both even if you believe in the other side. I think it would cause a lot less hatred among people.

            Today, I think taking part in dissoi logoi take much more work. Also, that if you wanted to do this, the best way is to not take part on social media. I think face to face with someone would be the best way, but that is a lot of work. You have to go too much out of your way to be involved in dissoi logoi on social media.

Filter Bubbles & Echo Chambers

In my POLS 230 last semester we actually discussed the idea of an echo chamber or filter bubble that social media creates as far as political views.  We all agreed unanimously that our social media feeds (mainly Facebook) have become echo chambers of our own views.  I believe as do many others that social media plays such a large role in the increasing political polarization of the US.  We all continue to see more and more information that agrees with what we already believe, but a lot of people don't even realize that other views have disappeared from their newsfeeds (like me until it was discussed in a class).

While the algorithm could be to blame, we are the ones choosing to click on links that agree with our own views and ignore opposing views; the algorithm just adjusts to these actions.  We do it to ourselves, but isn't it in our nature to want to see things that we agree with and boost our ego that we're right in what we believe?
As for my own filter bubble, I do encounter mostly articles and links that coincide with my own views.  However, after talking about this last semester I've made more of a conscious effort to seek out more information and unbiased news sources that are just factual.  Facebook has already created a newsfeed full of things that I agree with, so I mostly go to outside sources for actual news.
While this idea of an echo chamber can seem scary for our future, some say that while social media has the power to deepen our political party divide, it doesn't always do this.  In a New York Times article it makes the point that we can also inadvertantly be exposed to other viewpoints through social media that over time may make us more moderate.
I think the main point to be made is that we shouldn't rely on just social media to get our news and information.  It can be a good starting point but we need to seek out other sources too.  We can't put all the blame on social media, but need to take ownership as technology continues to advance.

Also, there has been a decline in dissoi logoi, which means there are two sides to every argument.  Some of this can be attributed to our increasingly polarized social networks.  Also, people are so connected to their devices that they just have less face to face interactions with others.  Surprisingly on social networks people are less likely to speak out about something and this cyber world is where most attention is focused.  The decline in dissoi logoi in our everyday lives can't just be blamed on social networks.  I think that some of it just comes from our changing society.  I almost hate to bring this up, but I believe something else that plays into this is our increasing need for political correctness.  Everyone is afraid of offending others.  But argument doesn't have to be aimed at offending but rather learning by being open to other viewpoints.
The biggest step that can be taken to engage in dissoi logoi more is just to look away from our screens and pay more attention to the world outside of technology and social media.  We need to be more conscious of the people around us to have intellectual disagreements.
Today in class we discussed how Dissoi Logoi has decreased tremendously in todays' society. Social media does use algorithms to force a feed to be things "you only want to see" because the website designers want people to visit their sites more because your satisfactory level of seeing only the things you want to see will make you come back more, duh.

Anyways, I 100% agree with this idea because social media only exposes us to what we want to see. We do not ever see the other side of an argument regardless of the validity of it. I also 100% agree that this increases polarization because we don't hear any arguments from the other side which decreases our capability to understand it. Polarization is an issue i would argue is a forefront issue and what keeps us from being a true democracy. Democracy is giving equal representation of different sides present but if we aren't accepting and respectful to the other side then what is the point of a democracy? Norrowcasting is a term that has been coined within the media of only showing certain points to prove a point instead a whole argument and i think we can think of social media as being "narrow casted". I think in todays society we can build a lot of arguments from the information we are exposed to but it's a very one sided argument that easily can be disproved because we don't know where the other side is coming from, let alone what argument they will present and lessening dissoi logoi. Understanding Dissoi Logoi is a key to having a strong argument because you present information against their argument before they even present making their argument look weaker. The more information you expose yourself to, makes you more informed before you can take a holistic approach to it instead of a individualized where you're looking at the full picture instead just from one side. Politics in America are incapable of accepting the argument from the other side meaning that polarization is the worst it's been since the civil war, but i believe if politicians took the approach of dissoi logoi we would have lot better rhetoric happening especially on the republican side but a much more fluid system.

Week 12 Blog Prompt

Reflect on your own "filter bubble." Do you often encounter opinions other than your own on your various media "feeds"? Do you follow or unfollow people based on their ideological leanings?  
Do you agree that the decline of dissoi logoi associated with internetworked media is responsible for an increase in polarization? Do you agree that this is problematic, or do you think there are some advantages to polarization? 
What are some actions you can take to engage in dissoi logoi more? Be specific.  

Every Search You Make (Big Data's Watching You): Impartial Algorithms & Erosions of Privacy

By: Geoffrey L.
Big data is watching you. Every click you make, every link you take, they'll be watching you.
      I was recently prompted by Facebook to conduct a privacy checkup because, according to Facebook, they were "concerned about my privacy" and wanted to make sure that I was "sharing with the right people." However, this tagline made me wonder if I should perhaps be more worried about sharing my information with Facebook than with the masses of the internet. After all, as Pasquale notes in his excerpt "Digital Reputation in an Era of Runaway Data," every single action taken online is collected, analyzed, sold, and used for targeted marketing, with little regard for the user's privacy. In particular, Facebook has admitted to tinkering with its users' news feeds in an attempt to manipulate their moods and the recent release of the Facebook reaction buttons has caused some to speculate that this new feature will also be used to gather more data from users and continue to experiment with users emotions. (I personally have received several strange taglines at the top of my newsfeed wishing me a "good evening," or suggesting that I tell the world about my voting behavior, causing me to wonder what tests Facebook is running on me and giving me a strange sense of solidarity with lab rats and guinea pigs). Google has similarly been found to have ruthlessly data mined users and exploited several browser loopholes to collect even more information from consumers of their services.
     This collection of data shows clear parallels to the informationist model of communication. Companies that collect data say that their data speaks for itself and that through their computers' analysis of the data, the companies will be able to make their services more efficient and user-friendly. Indeed, data on websites like OkCupid have made some interesting discoveries about Americans' online dating behavior.
     However, despite the intriguing insights that internet companies are able to reveal about human behavior, it has to be wondered if the algorithms websites use to collect and analyze data aren't subtly impacted by the attitudes and prejudices of their programmers. As outlined in the rhetorical model of communication, this often-overlooked human element of data has a strong influence on its collection and interpretation. For example, the ordering or grouping of options that are given to any given user of OKCupid could subtly influence their behavior. Furthermore, the data that these websites collect does not always speak for itself. Rather, human interpretation, like Christian Rudder's discussion of cliché online dating behavior, often emphasizes certain aspects of data while ignoring others.
      In addition to the fallibility of the systems set up to gather or analyze online data, data collection has been accompanied with other troubling developments. As Pasquale notes in his writing, data collectors often sell their information to the highest bidder, resulting in an unfortunate erosion of individual privacy. While individuals have come to expect some nebulous "right to privacy" from the government, companies like Facebook and Google have seemingly been able to circumvent this expectation just by virtue of being private companies. People simply seem to shrug their shoulders and suggest that individuals should know what they're getting in to when they go online and that the the burden of privacy protection lies with the individual rather than the internet companies harvesting the data. However, this attitude prevents discussion about the nature of privacy in the digital age and precludes the possibility of of the development of any real expectation of privacy from private businesses.
     Though individuals often respond to this data collection by suggesting individuals do their best to self-monitor their internet activity and minimize their digital footprints, this is no longer enough. In the era of big data, a call must be made for legislation that establishes greater user privacy and protects individuals from data mining companies and government surveillance. At very least, effort should be made to establish more transparency in the data collection process, with each action detailing exactly what data has been gathered and individuals being given a voice in which types of information will be sold to marketers. While the internet may be an inescapable part of everyday life, our privacy should never be surrendered wholly to the new watchmen of the world wide web.
Before today I had never really thought about my filtered life, but after class I realized that my social media life is filtered quite well to my interests. Between Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, I would say Facebook seems to have the strongest filter. Instagram seems to only filter my feed with ads they think will peak my interest, while Twitter filters ads and then shows a handful of tweets that they think I will like. Facebook on the other hand filters my entire feed and I cannot figure their pattern out. I have what seem to be random posts throughout my newsfeed on Facebook, but after I ride an article on Facebook, a very closely related article will be suggested shortly after. While these particular social media website filter what I see, I definitely do plenty of filtering on my own.
            As a social media user, I follow people who share the same interests and views as me. I can think of several different occasions where I saw a tweet or post that offended me and I immediately unfollowed that particular account. I have always thought of my social media as a place where I can enjoy trends and consume news, not a place where I see views and beliefs that differ from my own. This is probably one of many reasons Americans are becoming more and more polarized – most people wanted be surrounded by things that we agree with and make us feel better.

            If everyone would exercise dissoi logoi our nation would be far more united. As soon as people realize that we can we can get along and socialize without having the same or similar views beliefs our nation and the world will take huge steps forward. If we could just realize that considering and listening to one another’s views does not mean we have to feel the same way everyone would get along much better.

The Decline of Dissoi Logoi

Today in class we discussed how dissoi logoi, or in other words the argumentative examination of multiple perspectives on a topic, has declined with the rise of social media. This has come about due to information and media being tailored on the internet to specific users based on searches they make, pages that they view, things that they click on, etc. This means that when a person uses the internet, often times many of the differing viewpoints that are espoused by many others will not be visible, simply for the reason that that person does not agree with them. Many believe that this is a major contributing factor in the increasing political polarization in the United States. The term "filter bubble" is used to describe the online personal realm in which the information deemed relevant to a specific person's interests exists.

Reflecting on my own personal experience regarding the concept of the filter bubble and the decline of dissoi logoi, I have found much of it to be true. It would be very interesting to compare my search results with others considering that I have a Google account that I use quite often for a variety of different things, including social media, and also given that I have experienced this kind of filtering through my use of social media. One case of this in particular that I have observed is through Facebook, and I found the realization to be very interesting. For the past year or two, it has come to my attention that most of the posts in my Facebook feed actually promote positions that I disagree with. For the most part I assumed that it just meant that I held unconventional views when compared to my Facebook friends, but after reflecting on what we covered in class, I realized that this very well may be because I am more inclined to click on links and posts that I do not agree with in order to either try to prove them wrong or to try to reassure myself that that my position is the right one to take. This may not bet the case for most people, or maybe even for myself regarding other websites and social media outlets, but I think that it brings to light an interesting perspective on the subject. That being that in certain instances digital media can actually promote the broadening of perspectives and decrease polarization in certain areas of the web. I think that in order for digital media to promote dissoi logoi, we must collectively change our perspective on how we go about viewing information on the web. By encouraging people to broaden their horizons when it comes to what they view on the internet and how they view it, we can combat the growing polarization in our society.

Youtube's Algorithm

Youtube’s algorithm has been a hot topic for quite some time now. For a website geared towards ad viewership and how they can get the most amount of people possible to watch ads. The algorithm can so be a crucial part of Youtube’s earnings. Recently Youtube has changed their algorithm that affects what we have for options to watch. This change in ways has been beneficial and in other ways harmful. Let’s take a look at Youtube’s previous algorithm technique.

Both algorithms in a sense are made to verify quality of videos. Youtube’s old algorithm based quality off of viewership. This method works in a way that the videos that get the more clicks and views get raised up into the spotlight of the main page. The old method worked for many years until several Youtubers found out how to cheat the system. When the main page is based off of views, all big Youtubers had to do was pump out videos all the time with no work put into their videos. At many times in this algorithm, the main page would be filled by five to ten Youtubers with many unspectacular videos. The main reason this algorithm didn’t work was the abundance of low quality videos, and it did not promote smaller Youtube channels.

In today’s Youtube, the algorithm is focused on view time. Youtube is starting to think that the longer people stay and watch videos, the better quality it must be. To me this is a very effective way to show quality. Also this algorithm works for Youtube, because the longer people stay and watch a video the more they are exposed to ads which, in a way, is also a down side to this algorithm. People do not like sitting through ads, so the longer people watch a certain video the more prone they are to being annoyed by ads. Another downside to this algorithm is that content creators, who were once successful for short 30 second to 3 mintute videos, are no longer as successful. Even if people watch the 3 minute videos in their entirety it is still less view time than say a 10 minute video from another Youtuber.

Youtube is still trying to find the sweet spot with their algorithm. At the end of the day, they won’t be able to make everyone happy regardless of the system they make. But what they can do is find a happy medium, when it comes to catering to the well-established Youtube channels and promoting the smaller youtube channels. Youtube has to be careful with the algorithm they choose to be final, because in one way Youtube can be filled with thousands of smaller content creators and no big star studded ones. Another devastating outcome from a wrong algorithm being used is all that Youtube will mainly consist of big Youtube channels, causing the smaller channels to fade out.
Cash Minx
Modern-Day Propaganda: Not a Thing of the Past

When many think of propaganda their first thoughts are usually related to war. The Cold War and World War II often used some form of propaganda to communicate through the media. Propaganda might seem that it was most popular in the past but I’m here to tell you that it is alive and well today! It is not a thing of the past! Many Americans tend to believe that propaganda was mainly used to voice opinions and persuade individuals during times of war. But Americans today seem to not be able to realize the level of propaganda that surrounds their everyday lives.
When propaganda is released into the media, it always tends to stick to three main themes: Faith, Charity, and Hope.  For example, Presidents throughout the years have used these themes as centerpieces for propaganda. Wilson used faith as his main focus. He used faith as a way to introduce the public to the concept of social justice. Roosevelt used charity as his main focus of his propaganda towards everyone having the right to a job and a house. And lastly, as we all well know, Obama used hope for the future and hope for a big government as the core of his propaganda.

Some say that nobody does propaganda better than America. When comparing our propaganda to other countries’ propaganda, we have been explained to be the most clever about it. It seems that American propaganda depends solely on the emotional appeal of the audience. If you are trying to convince a community of people or trying to sell something, logic and theory is not very persuading in the eyes of the American society. Good and successful propaganda is neither applies to logic nor morality. Back during WWII, propaganda was used against Nazi Germany, as well as both German and America politicians.  Even though we still use propaganda in presidential elections and just politics in general, we still use it in our everyday lives. We can use it for advertising for clothing, deodorant, products, or just about anything! You name it!  So open your eyes, America! Propaganda is all around you!