EOTO Project

 

Petroglyphs: One of the Earliest Forms of Communication

When we think about communication technology, most of us probably think about smartphones, social media, television, or the internet. Before researching petroglyphs, I did not really think about communication technology existing thousands of years ago. However, petroglyphs show that humans have always looked for ways to share ideas and leave information behind for others.

Lake Winnemucca petroglyphs

Petroglyphs are images that are carved, chipped, or ground into rock surfaces. They are different from pictographs because pictographs are painted onto rocks instead of being carved into them. People could make petroglyphs by using handheld stone tools to hit, scratch, or grind the surface of a rock (National Park Service, 2024). This may sound simple compared to the technology we have today, but it was an effective way of creating something that could last for thousands of years.

What interested me the most was how old some petroglyphs actually are. Researchers studying petroglyphs at Winnemucca Lake in Nevada found that the carvings could have been created between about 10,500 and 14,800 years ago (Benson et al., 2013). That is crazy to think about because people living thousands of years before smartphones, computers, or even modern writing systems were still finding ways to leave messages and images behind. 

Petroglyphs could also communicate many different ideas. They often include images of people, animals, lines, spirals, and other shapes. Some may have been connected to stories, important events, travel routes, spiritual beliefs, or the natural world. However, we cannot simply look at a symbol today and know exactly what its creator meant. The National Park Service explains that the location of a petroglyph, archaeological evidence, and traditions passed down through generations can all help provide clues about its meaning (National Park Service, 2024).

Murujuga is famed for its petroglyphs

One of the most impressive examples I found is Murujuga in Western Australia. According to the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, the area contains an estimated one to two million rock engravings. The organization states that rock art has recorded people and their changing environment there for more than 50,000 years. These petroglyphs are also still important to Aboriginal people today (Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, n.d.). This helped me realize that petroglyphs are not simply ancient pictures for us to study. They can be part of living cultures and deserve to be protected and respected.

I think petroglyphs can be considered a communication technology because they allowed people to record and share information through images. Obviously, they are completely different from texting or posting on social media. A petroglyph could take a long time to make and could only be viewed by someone who physically traveled to that location. However, it had one major advantage: permanence.

After researching petroglyphs, I realized that our need to communicate really has not changed that much. The tools have changed, but humans still want to tell stories, express ideas, share information, and leave something behind. Thousands of years from now, our social media accounts may be gone, but some of these carvings could still be sitting on the same rocks.

References

Benson, L. V., Hattori, E. M., Southon, J., & Aleck, B. (2013). Dating North America's oldest petroglyphs, Winnemucca Lake subbasin, Nevada. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(12), 4466–4476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.022

Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation. (n.d.). About Murujuga. https://murujuga.org.au/about/about-murujuga/

National Park Service. (2024, June 12). Learn to look at petroglyphs and pictographs. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/learn-look-petroglyphs-pictographs.htm

Privacy

 Privacy in the Digital Age

Before watching the TED Talks about privacy, I knew that companies collected information about me online. However, I never really thought about how much information they could actually collect or what they could do with it.

Like most college students, I use my phone constantly. I use social media, search things on Google, watch videos, shop online, and communicate with friends. All of these activities can leave behind information about who I am and what I am interested in. 

One TED Talk that stood out to me was Gary Kovacs' Tracking Our Online Trackers. Kovacs explains how websites can track people as they move around the internet, often without them realizing how much information is being collected (Kovacs, 2012).

This immediately made me think about targeted advertisements. There have been plenty of times when I have searched for a product and then started seeing advertisements for that exact product on Instagram or other websites. I always knew there was some kind of tracking involved, but I did not realize how widespread online tracking could be.

Another TED Talk that caught my attention was Jen Goldbeck's How Surveillance Tech Erodes Your Privacy. Golbeck (2026) discusses how modern technology can allow companies and governments to collect information about people's movements, searches, habits, and everyday behaviors.

That is probably the part that freaked me out the most. There is a difference between choosing to post something publicly and having information collected about you in the background. Most people probably do not even realize how much data they create just by using their phones normally.

These privacy issues affect my friends, family, and me because we all rely heavily on technology. Even someone who does not post much on social media can still have a large digital footprint through apps, websites, online purchases, and other services.

I also think it is unrealistic to say that people should simply read every privacy policy before using an app. Most privacy policies are extremely long and complicated. People often click "accept" because they want to use the service, not because they fully understand everything they are agreeing to.

I think the government should create stricter and clearer rules about digital privacy. Companies should have to clearly explain what information they collect, why they collect it, how long they keep it, and whether they share or sell it to other organizations.

People should also have more control over their own information. It should be easier to tell a company that you do not want certain information collected or that you want your information deleted.

At the same time, there are things we can do ourselves to improve our privacy. We can check our privacy settings, limit unnecessary app permissions, use strong and unique passwords, and turn on multi-factor authentication. 

We should also think more carefully before giving apps access to our location, contacts, microphone, or camera. An app asking for permission does not necessarily mean we need to give it permission.

Overall, these TED Talks changed the way I think about privacy. What concerns me most is not just the information I intentionally put online. It is all the information that can be collected without me really thinking about it.

Technology makes our lives easier in so many ways, but that convenience should not mean completely giving up our privacy. I think individuals need to become more aware of their digital footprints, while companies and governments need to be held accountable for how they collect and use personal information.

References

Golbeck, J. (2026, June). How surveillance tech erodes your privacy [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/jen_golbeck_how_surveillance_tech_erodes_your_privacy

Kovacs, G. (2012, February). Tracking our online trackers [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_kovacs_tracking_our_online_trackers

Anti-War Post

 

Where Did All the Antiwar Voices Go?

Before this week, I had never heard of Antiwar.com or The American Conservative. I'm a journalism student. I read the news every day for class and follow a bunch of news accounts on TikTok and Instagram, and I still had no idea these sites existed.

When I opened Antiwar.com, the headlines were stuff I barely see anywhere else: how the Pentagon counts (and leaves out) troops killed in war, a piece on how war propaganda justifies conscription, and warnings from Yemen's Ansar Allah about the U.S. entering another war. The American Conservative runs a daily "Iran War Day 208" update. Day 208. I knew there was conflict with Iran, but seeing a running count made me realize how normal it has become to not think about it. What surprised me most was that one of these sites is openly conservative, and the other brings together writers from the left and the libertarian right. Antiwar views don't belong to one party, which makes it even weirder that they get so little airtime.antiwar+1

So why do we have to go looking for these voices? I think there are a few reasons.

First, mainstream news depends on access. War reporters rely on the Pentagon, the White House, and "senior officials" for information. If you keep calling out the people who give you your sources, those sources can stop calling back. So coverage ends up framed the way officials frame it: strikes, targets, strategy. It's rarely framed as "should we even be doing this?"

Anti-War Propaganda (1940)

Second, money. Big networks are owned by huge corporations, and they need advertisers and ratings. War coverage with cool graphics and dramatic footage gets views. A commentator questioning the whole premise of a war is less exciting, and it can be seen as "unpatriotic," which scares off audiences and sponsors. Much of the cable news "expert" pool is retired generals or think-tank people, and some have ties to defense contractors.

Third, the algorithm. Even on social media, where you'd think anyone can be heard, platforms push what's already popular. Smaller independent sites don't have huge marketing budgets, so they get buried unless you go searching.

This connects directly to what we learned about the Progressive Era. During World War I, people like Eugene Debs were thrown in jail just for speaking out against the war and the draft. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court said antiwar leaflets could be punished because they created a "clear and present danger." But later that same year, in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes dissented and argued for what became known as the "marketplace of ideas," the idea that the best test of truth is letting ideas compete openly. That dissent helped build the modern First Amendment we have today.

Today, nobody is getting arrested for writing on Antiwar.com. The government isn't banning these views like it did in 1918. But if those voices never make it onto the big platforms, is the marketplace of ideas actually working? Having the legal right to speak doesn't mean much if hardly anyone hears you. It's less about censorship and more about who gets the microphone.

As someone who wants to go into broadcast journalism, this is a little uncomfortable to think about, because I'm going to be part of the system that decides which voices get airtime. I don't think every antiwar argument is automatically right, and it's smart to fact-check these sites just like any other source. But the public deserves to hear the full debate, especially when lives are on the line. Dissent is supposed to be part of the conversation, not something you have to dig for.

Image 1 - https://yalealumnimagazine.org/articles/4331-the-forgotten-antiwar-movement 

8 Values of Free Expression

 

Reflecting on the Eight Values of Free Expression

When we first went over the eight values of free expression — the marketplace of ideas, participation in self-government, stable change, individual self-fulfillment, checking government power, promoting tolerance, promoting innovation, and protecting dissent, I'll be honest, they kind of blurred together. They sounded like the type of list you memorize for an exam and forget by Friday. But the longer I sat with them, the more I realized I've been living inside a few of them my whole life without having the vocabulary for it.

The one that hits me hardest is individual self-fulfillment. As a broadcast journalism major, basically everything I make is me figuring out who I am out loud. Scripts, captions, podcast episodes, that one commercial I re-edited nine times. Free expression, for me, isn't only about protecting political speech at a podium — it's about the ordinary, slightly cringe process of becoming a person through the stuff you create. If I couldn't post, write, or record freely, I don't think I'd know myself as well as I do.

Right behind that is checking government power, which feels less personal and more like the reason my future job exists. Journalism only works if somebody's allowed to be annoying to people in charge.

Here's where second-level thinking kicks in for me. It's easy to say "social media is free speech" and stop there. But which theory actually explains what's happening on our feeds?

I keep coming back to the marketplace of ideas — and how algorithms complicate it. The classic theory assumes that if all ideas compete openly, truth eventually wins. But TikTok and Instagram aren't open marketplaces; they're curated ones. An algorithm decides which "stalls" I ever walk past. That's not censorship in the traditional sense, but it does mean my marketplace looks nothing like my roommate's.

Which is why it caught my attention that Australia's government moved to let social media users opt out of algorithmic feeds, a plan the White House reportedly criticized and that critics themselves argue could curtail free speech. I find that genuinely hard. Is regulating the algorithm protecting the marketplace, or interfering with it? Second-level thinking means admitting both answers have a real argument.

Arrests of Anti-Royal protestors spur free speech debate

Then there's protecting dissent, which shows up in a story I can't stop thinking about: the Free Speech Union reported that more than 62,000 people in the UK were arrested for "speech offences" over five years, including for social media posts, based on Big Brother Watch's FOI findings. Whatever you think about offensive posts, this reminds us that the line between "harmful speech" and "unpopular speech" is drawn by whoever's holding the pen.

The theories aren't just historical trivia. They're competing arguments about what speech is for — and every time I open my phone, I'm participating in that argument whether I mean to or not. Tolerance theory says the discomfort is the point. I'm still deciding if I believe that, which honestly feels like the correct place to be right now.

Supreme Court Reflection

 

Supreme Court Building in Washington

What I Learned About the U.S. Supreme Court

Watching this video gave me a new appreciation for the role of the U.S. Supreme Court and the influence it has on American government. Before watching, I understood that the Court interprets laws, but I did not fully realize how much its decisions shape the boundaries of government power.

One of the most interesting points was that, although the Supreme Court derives its legitimacy from the Constitution, its power depends heavily on public opinion. That idea stood out to me because it highlights how even the highest court in the country is connected to the people it serves.

I also learned that there have been just over 100 Supreme Court justices in American history. The video described being appointed to the Court as something comparable to being struck by lightning because it is such a rare opportunity. I found that comparison memorable because it emphasized how exclusive and significant the position really is.

Another lesson that stayed with me was that, while the justices are highly trained in the law, they are ultimately dealing with people and the real-world impact of their decisions. That perspective made the Court feel less distant and more connected to the lives of everyday citizens.

I was surprised to learn about John Marshall and his importance in Supreme Court history. I also had never heard his famous statement, “Never forget it is a constitution we are expounding.” That quote reinforced the idea that the Court’s responsibility goes beyond individual laws and focuses on interpreting the broader principles of the Constitution.

The video also discussed difficult moments in the Court’s history. I learned that Congress had no power to abolish slavery and that the Dred Scott case left a lasting wound on the Supreme Court’s reputation. These examples showed me that the Court’s decisions can have consequences that shape how future generations view the institution.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that the Supreme Court is not a static institution. From time to time, judges change their views during conference discussions, demonstrating that debate and reflection remain important parts of the judicial process. After watching the video, I see the Supreme Court not just as a legal body, but as an institution that continues to influence the direction of the nation.

____________________________________

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 learnt, I emphasised my own reactions and opinions while watching. I then asked Copilot to improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I then asked Copilot to shape the text into a blog post format. After reviewing the text, I added links to related resources, as well as appropriate images and captions. 

____________________________________

WATCH THE VIDEO NOW

My Top 5 News and Information Sources

Top 5 Sources of News and Information 

1. ABC News 

ABC News is probably one of my main sources of news because it covers pretty much everything happening around Australia. As an Australian, I like being able to check what is happening in my own state and around the country, while also getting updates about international events. I also find ABC pretty easy to use because I can see articles, videos, and updates through its website and social media. I would recommend ABC News because it is a good place to start if you want reliable information without having to search through heaps of different websites.

2. SBS News 

SBS News is another source I like because it gives me a different perspective from some of the other Australian news outlets. I especially like how much international news SBS covers, because I don't just want to know what is happening in Australia. SBS also has news about Australian culture, Indigenous issues, sport, entertainment, and stories from different communities. As an Australian, I like that SBS is available through its website, app, and social media, so it is easy to keep up with the news without sitting down and watching a full news program. I would recommend SBS because it gives you Australian and international news while covering a diverse range of voices.

3. news.com.au 

I like using news.com.au because it is quick and easy to check, especially when I just want to know what is happening without reading a massive article. It covers Australian news, sport, entertainment, lifestyle and international stories, so there is usually something interesting to look at. I also think it fits the way a lot of Gen Z people consume news because you can quickly scroll through headlines and decide what you actually want to read. I would recommend news.com.au if you want a more fast-paced way of keeping up with Australian news.

4. TikTok

TikTok is one of my main sources of information because, as a young Australian, I spend a lot of time on social media. I often find out about breaking news, sports results, Australian events, and random interesting stories through videos on my For You Page before I see them on traditional news websites. I like TikTok because information is usually presented in short videos that are easy to understand and don't take much time to watch. However, I know that TikTok isn't always the most reliable source, so I think it is important to check important stories with another source before believing or sharing them. I would recommend TikTok as a way to discover what people are talking about, rather than relying on it as the only source of news.

5. ESPN 

ESPN would definitely be in my top five because I am really into sport, especially soccer. I use sports news differently from regular news because I want quick updates about games, players, transfers, competitions, and what is happening around the sporting world. ESPN is useful because I can quickly check scores and news without having to search through heaps of different websites. As Australian sport is a big part of the media I consume, I think it makes sense to include a sports source alongside my more traditional news sources. I would recommend ESPN to anyone who follows sport because it is an easy way to stay updated on what is happening both in Australia and internationally