Serendipity35

Schools are instituting bans on cell phones in classrooms. These bans aim to create a more focused, interactive, and supportive learning environment for students. But they are certainly controversial. Some large school districts like Los Angeles Unified School District and New York City Public Schools are looking to or have already implemented district-wide cellphone bans. Though this is more common in K-12 classroom, in higher education there are examples of individual faculty, certain courses or departments that have initiated bans.

The reasons generally given for these bans include:

Reducing Distractions: Cell phones can be a significant source of distraction for students, leading to decreased focus and engagement in class

Improving Academic Performance: Studies suggest that limiting cell phone use in classrooms can lead to better academic outcomes, as students are more likely to pay attention and participate in lessons

Enhancing Social Interaction: Banning cell phones encourages face-to-face communication and interaction among students, which is crucial for developing social skills.

Preventing Cyberbullying: Cell phones can be used to facilitate cyberbullying of students, faculty and administration, and removing them from the classroom can help create a safer environment

Promoting Mental Health: Excessive screen time and social media use have been linked to mental health issues in young people. Reducing cell phone use in schools can help mitigate these effects

When cell phones first became more prevalent with students (starting with college students and working down to high school and now younger students) there were individual teachers who instituted bans on using them in class. There were also teachers who promoted the wise use of them in their courses. The cons side of this also has good reason against banning cell phones from classrooms

As Educational Tools: Cell phones can be powerful educational tools, providing access to learning apps, online resources, and educational videos that can enhance the learning experience.

For Emergency Communication: Cell phones allow students to quickly contact parents or emergency services in case of an emergency, providing an added layer of safety.

Developing Digital Literacy: In today's digital age, students need to learn how to use technology responsibly. Allowing controlled use of cell phones in the classroom can help develop these skills.

Access to Information: Cell phones enable students to instantly look up information, conduct research, and verify facts during lessons, promoting active learning.

Inclusivity: For students with special needs, cell phones can provide necessary accommodations, such as text-to-speech applications and other assistive technologies.

Organizational Tools: Many students use their phones to keep track of assignments, deadlines, and schedules through calendar apps and reminders.

Parental Contact: Parents can directly communicate with their children, which is reassuring for both parties, especially in cases of schedule changes or family emergencies.

A web search will turn up lots of articles on the pros and cons of cell phone use and bans on their use in classrooms.
https://congressionaldigest.com/pros-and-cons-of-banning-cellphones-in-schools/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/experts-see-pros-and-cons-to-allowing-cellphones-in-class/

 

Though artificial intelligence is not your friend, it should not be solely considered your enemy. Like many technologies, it has it positive and negative aspects and applications.

Amber MacArthur wrote "AI is not your friend. Any friend that stops working when the power goes out is a machine." She is at least partially referring to the idea of people becoming friendly with AI in the way that we saw in the film HER. That film premiered more than a decade ago and now looks like something very much is not only possible but is already happening in many ways.

Amber had a longer post on LinkedIn that she excerpted in her newsletter. Here are a few of her observations: 

• "AI-based social media platforms are not free speech platforms. These platforms curate, amplify, promote, and - yes - demote. Think about it like yelling in the public town square, but depending on what you say, Elon Musk's army of agents is there to either put a hand over your mouth to quiet you down or give you a megaphone to pump you up."
• Schools should not ignore or ban all AI applications. "AI training in schools should be a priority since AI skills in the workplace are a priority. Kids who grow up in an age when they are taught that AI is only a threat and not also a tool will be at a competitive disadvantage."
• On the negative side - "AI warfare is the most frightening reality of our time." And it is already here and guaranteed to increase.
• On the positive side - "AI healthcare is the most exciting opportunity of our time."

She knows that her list is not definitive and admits that it is "fluid, so if there is something you would like me to add, please let me know on my socials or via email so I can check it out.."

It's not the metaverse. The fediverse is a network of interconnected social media servers from all over the world. Each server on the fediverse can be thought of as an independent platform with its users, content, and rules. Servers share information to enable people to connect and discover new things across the fediverse.

I was using Threads and changing my settings so that my posts there would not crosspost to the other Meta products Instagram and Facebook. I saw this note:

Threads has joined the fediverse, an open, global network of social media servers. If you decide to turn on sharing to the fediverse, people from different platforms (like Mastodon or Flipboard) can follow your Threads profile and see and engage with your posts even if they don’t have a Threads profile. Sharing to the fediverse is optional and only available to people 18 and over with public profiles. Threads is integrating with the fediverse in a phased approach that will add new features over time. It’s important to understand how sharing to the fediverse affects your privacy.

Meta doesn’t own the fediverse (or the metaverse, despite its name) and Threads is just one of many servers that has joined it.

The fediverse, short for "federated universe," is new enough to most users that there are still questions about whether or not it is good and safe. The fediverse can be a great option for those seeking more control over their social media experience, valuing privacy, and wanting to support decentralized technology. Safety depends on the specific instance and its policies. Users should carefully choose instances with good moderation practices and align with their values.

I'll admit I was unaware of what the fediverse means even though it was created in the early 2000s. The idea was that it could create greater connectivity and community, no matter which app they use. Other platforms that have joined the fediverse include Flipboard, Mastodon, PeerTube and others.

Meta on its privacy page about the fediverse says that one way to think about the fediverse is to compare it to email. You can send an email from a Gmail account to a Yahoo account because those services can communicate. Similarly, if you can post from Threads to the fediverse, a person who uses a Mastodon server can follow you and see and interact with your content directly from their server.
Unlike email, your fediverse conversations and profile are public and can be shared across servers.

Terms of service. That information you tend to avoid reading. Good example: Google's newly updated terms of service, which I found out about in an email last week. I decided to read them.

Their updated terms opens with "We know it’s tempting to skip these Terms of Service, but it’s important to establish what you can expect from us as you use Google services, and what we expect from you. These Terms of Service reflect the way Google’s business works, the laws that apply to our company, and certain things we’ve always believed to be true. As a result, these Terms of Service help define Google’s relationship with you as you interact with our services."

Here are a few items I noted:
Some things considered to be abuse on the part of users includes accessing or using Google services or content in fraudulent or deceptive ways, such as:
phishing
creating fake accounts or content, including fake reviews
misleading others into thinking that generative AI content was created by a human
providing services that appear to originate from you (or someone else) when they actually originate from us
providing services that appear to originate from us when they do not
using our services (including the content they provide) to violate anyone’s legal rights, such as intellectual property or privacy rights
reverse engineering our services or underlying technology, such as our machine learning models, to extract trade secrets or other proprietary information, except as allowed by applicable law
using automated means to access content from any of our services in violation of the machine-readable instructions on our web pages (for example, robots.txt files that disallow crawling, training, or other activities)
hiding or misrepresenting who you are in order to violate these terms
providing services that encourage others to violate these terms

Take that second item I highlighted about misleading others into thinking that generative AI content was created by a human, Does that mean that if I use their generative AI or some other provider's AI to help write a blog post that I put here with my name that I am violating their terms of service?

Though I would say that Google's Terms of Service is written in plain langauage that most readers should be able to understand, the implications of some of the terms are much harder to interpret.

NOTE: The Google Terms of Service (United States version) that I reference are effective May 22, 2024.
View Archived versions and  Download a PDF