History and Impact of Instant Messaging

The growth of instant messaging has made communication faster, easier, and more accessible worldwide.

Imagine living in a world where every digital conversation had to happen through email or a phone call. That was reality before instant messaging, a technology that forever changed how people communicate. Today, messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Microsoft Teams, and Snapchat are part of everyday life. However, instant messaging began long before smartphones existed.

The roots of instant messaging can be traced back to 1973, when programmers Doug Brown and David Woolley created a system called Talkomatic at the University of Illinois. Working on the PLATO computer network, they wanted a way for users to communicate with each other in real time while using the same system. Unlike email, which required users to send and receive messages separately, Talkomatic allowed people to see messages appear instantly as they were typed. According to the Talkomatic project, it is considered the world's first multi-user chat room.

The problem Brown and Woolley were trying to solve was simple: people using computers had no fast, convenient way to hold a live conversation. Most communication through computers was delayed, making collaboration difficult. Their invention allowed users to exchange ideas immediately, creating one of the first examples of real-time digital communication. What started as a tool for a small educational network would eventually influence the future of online interaction.

Although Talkomatic introduced the concept, instant messaging became a household technology in the 1990s. The biggest breakthrough came when AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) launched in 1997. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, AIM was the first large-scale instant messaging service to reach millions of users. For the first time, people could see when friends were online and send messages back and forth instantly. This eliminated the delays of email and made online conversations feel natural and immediate.

The impact of instant messaging was enormous. It transformed communication from something that was often slow and formal into something fast and conversational. Friends could stay connected from different cities, families could communicate across long distances, and businesses could collaborate more efficiently. The technology helped create a more connected world by allowing information to travel instantly between people.

Instant messaging also changed social behavior. Conversations that once happened face-to-face or over the phone increasingly moved online. The rise of messaging introduced new communication habits, including emojis, abbreviations, group chats, and online status updates. Many of the features we now associate with social media were first popularized through instant messaging platforms.

However, the technology has not been without problems. One major concern is privacy. Messages can be stored, shared, or intercepted, raising ethical questions about who has access to personal conversations. Instant messaging has also made cyberbullying easier because harmful messages can be sent quickly and anonymously. In addition, the expectation of being constantly available has increased stress for many people. The pressure to respond immediately can blur the boundaries between work, school, and personal life.

From a law and ethics perspective, instant messaging raises important questions about digital privacy, freedom of expression, and responsible communication. Governments, schools, and businesses have had to create policies addressing issues such as harassment, data protection, and the appropriate use of messaging platforms.

More than fifty years after the invention of Talkomatic, instant messaging remains one of the most influential communication technologies ever created. What began as an experiment to help a small group of computer users talk in real time has evolved into a global system connecting billions of people every day. Instant messaging solved the problem of delayed communication, but it also introduced new ethical challenges that society continues to navigate. Its story demonstrates how one invention can transform the way people connect, collaborate, and communicate across the world.

AI Disclosure: This blog post was developed with the assistance of Microsoft Copilot. AI was used to help research the history and impact of instant messaging, organize information, and improve the clarity and flow of the writing. All sources were reviewed by the author, and the final content was edited to ensure accuracy, relevance, and alignment with the requirements of this assignment.

The Hidden Voices of Anti-War

Anti-war protests have been a part of U.S. history since the nation's founding,
with Americans publicly opposing conflicts.

I was tasked with looking into two websites, encouraging the anti-war movement and it has me wondering, that as an anti-war personality myself, why have I never heard of these websites?

I believe that the generation I have grown with view war as a normalcy that was here in the U.S. before we were, so why should we question it? Personally, learning about how war is the main cause of human suffering and death, economic disruption, infrastructure demolition, environmental damage, political strain, and those are just a few that come to mind, I am against it, as most of Gen Z is (kind of feels like social proof as a persuasion tactic) 

Looking into Antiwar.com and The American Conservation you can clearly see that they are built around perspectives that challenge interventionist foreign policy. Antiwar.com dives explicitly into its mission as promoting non-interventionism and going against the justifications of military intervention. While The American Conservative started partly as an opposition to the Iraq War and to this day has published writers advocating for what they call "realism and restraint."

By contrast, mainstream news organizations generally aren't organized around a single foreign policy position, and their coverage is shaped by what is considered newsworthy, who journalist can interview, newsroom resources, deadlines, audience interests, and which sources are readily available. Government officials and other powerful institutional sources can have disproportionate influence over what becomes news.

I feel that doesn't mean antiwar arguments don't appear in mainstream media, but they may appear as one perspective within a larger debate, rather than as the organizing principle of the published.

A possible explanation for why these voices feel hidden for me is that people, myself included, often consume media through a relatively small number of large outlets, and those outlets have similar operational environments, journalistic wise. Following only these sources, give only a narrow range of foreign policy perspectives than what exists in the broader media ecosystem.

I will say that if something isn't mainstream, it doesn't make it any less biased or any more accurate. And the idea of 'antiwar' can be seen to a lot of people as only an opinion made by tree-huggers and not by patriotic Americans. The stereotype against it has a huge impact on why it isn't seen so often.

AI Disclosure: No AI was used in the making of this blog post.

Privacy On and Off

 

Flock cameras trigger backlash nationwide over privacy concerns of the American people.

Privacy is something we were taught to respect since we were kids, but at what point does that make us naive against others disrespecting ours?

Watching Catherine Crump's Ted Talk detailing the mass surveillance the police and government has gained on the American people had me thinking of how this unethical practice came about and ultimately affected someone like me, an innocent student who hasn't done anything to permit spying against me.

She spoke about the use and growing popularity of automatic license plate readers or ALPRs, used to track cars wherever they go. Police collecting location data on millions of people daily, not just criminals. Your travel history gained from these can reveal personal details about your life and how citizens privately interact.

If the NYPD is using this technology is tracking people who are attending religious mosques, what stops them from tracking my religious habits and creating judgements about my life to push an agenda, feeding me what I want to hear as a strategic algorithm?

In response, the government should create stronger privacy laws on how much personal data is collected and keep tabs on officials since it has become a regular problem of law enforcement taking advantage and using this technology as a personal device. 

In a way, if the government can't prevent some issues arising with the American people being watched daily, what can only be assumed is that we as the people can do something about it. A Ted Talk I watched in class titled, Juan Enriquez: Your online life, permanent as a tattoo, highlighted some ideas that individuals can do or look out for when they are online. 

We can protect ourselves by thinking carefully before posting online, limiting the personal information we share, using privacy settings, and remembering that our digital footprint can last forever. Enriquez compares online information to a permanent tattoo, reminding us that what we do online today may affect our future.

As learned in class, when the first party (yourself) voluntarily gives information to a second party, the first party relinquishes all control over third party downstream.

AI Disclosure: No AI was used in the making of this blog post.

My One of Eight Values of Free Expression

    

The phrase 'We the People' at the beginning of the United States Constitution emphasizes that the government's power comes from the citizens and exists to serve them.

When I read about the Eight Values of Free Expression, the two theories that resonated with me the most were Individual Self-Fulfillment(4) and Promote Tolerance(6). While all of the values are important, these two feel the most personal because they affect everyday life, especially for students. They remind me that free expression is not only about politics or court cases. It is also about being able to be yourself, share your ideas, and learn how to live alongside people who think differently than you do.

  

 The first value that stood out to me was Individual Self-Fulfillment. This theory argues that freedom of speech allows people to express themselves and develop their own identity. I think this is one of the most important reasons for protecting free expression because people need the freedom to discover who they are. Whether someone is expressing their beliefs, sharing creative work, or simply speaking their mind, free expression helps them grow as individuals.

    As a college student, I see this value constantly. Students come from different backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. In classes, clubs, and on social media, people express opinions that may be different from my own. Being able to communicate openly allows everyone to learn more about themselves and others. I know that I have become more confident in sharing my ideas because I have been given opportunities to speak and participate in discussions. If people felt afraid to express themselves, they might never fully develop their own identity or discover what they truly believe.

    I also think this theory is especially relevant today because social media gives people many opportunities to share their voices. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube allow people to express their creativity, opinions, and experiences with large audiences. Although these platforms have problems, they also show how important self-expression is to modern life. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), freedom of speech protects our right to express ourselves, even when our views are unpopular or controversial (ACLU Free Speech Resources).

    The second value that resonates with me is Promote Tolerance. This theory argues that protecting speech, even speech that we strongly disagree with, helps society become more tolerant. At first, this idea seemed strange to me. Why should society protect speech that is offensive or upsetting? However, the more we as a class talked about it, the more I understood the logic behind it. When people encounter different viewpoints, they have the opportunity to learn why certain ideas are harmful and why others are beneficial. Instead of suppressing disagreement, society can respond through discussion, education, and criticism.

    I see this value in action on college campuses and online discussions. Students often debate issues related to politics, social justice, education, and public policy. Sometimes these conversations become uncomfortable, but discomfort is not always a bad thing. It can encourage people to think critically and better understand perspectives that differ from their own. A society where people are never exposed to different viewpoints may become more divided because people stop listening to one another.

    One recent example is the ongoing debates about speech on college campuses. Universities often struggle to balance creating an inclusive environment while protecting free expression. Organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argue that students benefit when a variety of viewpoints can be discussed openly, even when those viewpoints are controversial (https://www.thefire.org). These debates show that tolerance is not always easy, but it remains an important goal in a democratic society.

    Overall, Individual Self-Fulfillment and Promote Tolerance are the free expression values that mean the most to me. Self-fulfillment reminds me that people need freedom to develop their identities and express who they are. Tolerance reminds me that living in a diverse society requires respecting the rights of others to express different opinions. Together, these values help create a society where people can be both individuals and members of a larger community.