Sunaina Parihar

Hannah Cersell replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Sunaina, you’re absolutely right. What possibly could be done to prevent this misinformation? The media unfortunately has become a place of opinion and not news and we can see this for example, when we watch CNN and Fox News.
It baffles me that sites full of misinformation can even be published and I think that sites that are known for false information should be monitored and penalized, especially when it comes to facts about a global pandemic or opinions about a particular US government candidate.
You mention that the internet and social media is being used now more than ever which is evidently true. I think that this 2020 presidential election has taken this into account and has developed a plan to reach a younger generation and encourage them to vote more than ever before.

How do you feel about mail in ballots? I know my father is doing this but is concerned with recent news and how some have been found in the trash.
- Sunaina Parihar replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Good point about penalizing companies that spread this sort of misinformation! Especially if the penalty outweighs the amount of engagement they get, I think companies would definitely think twice about the sort of information they are putting out.
  
  I also agree with getting more people to vote, even if they are not old enough yet, instilling the importance in younger people is important. Social media may actually be helpful in this case if the right message is shared, since most young people are on social media now.
  
  As far as mail in ballots, I think it’s obviously great for people who are not able to vote in person for any reason, but I do think going in person is important if you can!
Katherine O'Donnell replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I think the tough thing about misinformation on the Internet is that unless the powers at be on Facebook or Twitter catch it fast enough, so many people are going to spread the false information that putting a “fact check” feature on posts is not going to be enough. I feel like half of my Facebook friends would honestly believe news they read about a potential candidate on a hastily created meme someone shared with them. I think it would be nearly impossible for social media sites to police everyone. It’s not just the new sites or the campaigns themselves putting out election messaging. Not to mention – there are sites out there like 4Chan or certain subreddits on Reddit that do no fact checking at all. I think the solution needs to at least be partly cultural – we all need to stop believing what we read on the Internet. We need to normalize doing research and checking out multiple reputable news sources. And I think we need to give folks the space to change their opinions once they realize what’s wrong with them.
- Sunaina Parihar replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Katherine – you’re absolutely right, the amount of information that is uploaded to the internet is so great it’s almost impossible to detect everything. But, that’s where AI can play a huge role and hopefully more capabilities like NewsGuard from my article will come into play.
  
  I agree, message board-type sites like reddit and 4chan are easy to just post anything and that is where the user needs to take everything with a grain of salt.
Sean T. replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I am a big supporter of more regulations on social media firms. However, I will play devil’s advocate on this. We expect social media companies to control and police up postings from individual users. What about traditional media outlets? I would argue that the main stream media does post factual information, but it is always very one sided. What is the difference between misinformation and just a slanted opinion? Where is that line?
- Sunaina Parihar replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  That is a good point Sean. Thats is where fines for companies that post misinformation would be useful and effective. I think to some it may be very easy to call out an article that is posting blatant lies vs just having a biased opinion. This is where Katherine’s comment comes into play because us as readers need to sort of just be accountable and knowledgable enough to know truth vs. blatant lies.
  - Sean T. replied 3 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    I agree with that 100%. There needs to be a lot more ownership on the individual level. The Government should not have to police up everything. I as a user should take the steps to protect myself. To a certain extent, there are obviously times when companies go out of their way to take advantage of people, and that is where the government comes in.

Sean T. replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago

I like your idea of the store changing based on the ruling demographic. I would like to see it one step further. As a customer is looking at an individual product they get an offer for that product, and a suggested pairing of something else to up sale. The IoT in the store would then safe it under the user file so when the customer goes to the POS the IoT can tie whatever deals where offered to that individual.

I am reminded of the scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise walks into the store and the holographic sales clerk asks him about his last purchase.
- Sunaina Parihar replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Great recommendation Sean! We are already seeing targeted ads based on places we have been virtually/in person but this would really close the deal on the in-person sale.
  
  And I have not seen the movie, but seems like with the way technology is headed – that may be sooner than we think!
Katherine O'Donnell replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago

I’m not sure how I feel about AI IoT being used that way in stores. While I realize that all stores have cameras and are monitoring everyone who comes in and out, it seems like a little bit of an invasion of privacy for them to be able to use facial recognition software to start building a profile of me and offer me tailored ads. On the other hand, when you think about it, social media sites like Facebook have already done the exact same thing. I seemingly have no problem with that! For some reason, it just seems so much more personal being inside a physical retail location. It will be interesting to see if the government is able to catch up to these technologies and introduce some sort of privacy law that will protect people in both situations.
- Sunaina Parihar replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Completely hear you on the privacy aspect of things! But yes, you bring up an interesting point. How is being in person any different than being targeted on our computers/phones? Is it the security that hiding behind a screen allows?
Erin Mihalik replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago

I completely agree with you that IoT is a sustaining innovation, whether it’s paired with AI or if it’s just innovative use of technology in a new way – but fundamentally, nothing about IoT is new to us as it stands right now in 2020. The idea of our tech devices pairing and communicating with each other is old news. That’s why I love the approach you took with your article; the real innovation is happening with IoT is combined with AI. While I agree with some other classmates that the AIoT being used through security cameras in stores is a bit unsettling, I do think it has really promising potential for city planning and transportation!

Sean T. replied 3 months ago

I think using AI to impower the metrics is a great idea. The current process of collecting metrics for ecommerce is a very static process. If you complain AI, you can start seeing how environmental changes effect the business. I don’t just mean the weather. The AI could gather information on changes in regulations. Or it could gather information on competitors to project where the market is going at large. You are right, ecommerce is at its pivot point. It is time for companies to take advantage.

Sunaina Parihar

@sunaina-parihar

FOX SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

MS Digital Innovation in Marketing

@sunaina-parihar

Footer

FOX SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

MS Digital Innovation in Marketing