1.5 Modern Communication Variables

In considering communications theory and defining types of communication, a common challenge arises as we adapt and apply what we have learned to real-world situations: effective communication is a moving target, with new technology serving as the primary source of this challenge. For instance, as we reviewed social media in the above section as a new means of interpersonal and mass communication, we found that hitting the “share” button on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter creates an ironic twist of roles between senders and receivers. Audiences are now doing the virtual footwork for the information providers.

Communication technology tends to change rapidly. Gradual changes do occur, but since one of the main purposes behind scientific and technological discovery is to speed up processes, traditional methods of dealing with the effects of rapid change may not suffice.

For example, during the mid-20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court made several landmark decisions regarding obscenity.1 During that time, all forms of communication could be compartmentalized into boundaries such as neighborhoods, cities, states, radio or television signal allocation as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), U.S. mail, or other “places.” These categories were used to delineate where, when, and how obscene material such as pornography might be delivered, while protecting children from exposure. Seeing the shifting landscape of these complex boundaries led to the court’s “community standards” rule“community standards” rule: In Miller v. California (1973), SCOTUS ruled that obscenity is defined as “utterly without socially redeeming value,” which depends on a three-prong test to make that determination that is based on a local community’s standard. in Roth v. United States (1957) and Miller v. California (1973), which gave communities and local government institutions the power to declare the legal definition of obscenity based on their jurisdiction. As the internet rose to prominence in the late 1990s and early 21st century, these traditional means (such as the Supreme Court and the FCC) became less relevant, allowing any and all sort of content onto any device in any place regardless of any “community standard.”

Similar variables continue to have far-reaching and rapid social outcomes, such as psychological effects on people who communicate primarily through cell phones via text or through social media channels. The lack of physical contact, nonverbal cues, and context and the risk of misinformation (deliberate or unintended) may test the limits of communications theory as we know it and lead to new areas of study to find solutions for these new challenges.

Another key and emerging variable is the use of artificial intelligenceartificial intelligence: The use of computers or software to automatically perform perceptive tasks that would otherwise be assigned to human beings. AI programs depend on human-created algorithms that perform evaluative functions. in digital communication formats, especially on social media and search engines like Google. Automation presents new dilemmas surrounding privacy and also creates further questions as to how data is used to influence audience behavior.

Topic 2 will examine these new challenges as we review how advances in technology have altered the course of history and changed the way we communicate.