An Accidental Invention, A Global Conversation: The Telephone

Alexander Graham Bell's accidental invention of the telephone transformed human communication forever.

I've always found it strange that some of the biggest turning points in history happen by accident. That's exactly what drew me to this story. On March 7, 1876, a 29-year-old speech teacher walked away from the U.S. Patent Office with a piece of paper that would reshape human communication. The patent, officially titled "Improvement in Telegraphy," didn't even use the word "telephone." But Alexander Graham Bell had just secured U.S. Patent Number 174,465 for a device that would soon make the telegraph look obsolete.

Bell's Patent for the Telephone
U.S No. 174, 465

What I find most interesting is that Bell wasn't trying to invent anything like a telephone at all. He was trying to fix the telegraph's biggest limitation: it could only carry one message at a time. Bell was chasing something called a "harmonic telegraph" — a system that would let multiple messages travel over a single wire simultaneously, using different tones to keep them separate.

He never got there. Instead, he stumbled onto something bigger, and honestly, that's the part of this story I keep coming back to.

While experimenting in his lab with his assistant, Thomas Watson, Bell noticed an unexpected vibration in the equipment. It was a small, almost forgettable moment — except it revealed something no one had proven before: electrical current could carry the sound of a human voice, not just the clicks and dashes of Morse code. Reading about that moment, I couldn't help but think about how many discoveries in history hinge on someone simply paying attention when something seems slightly off.

Bell and Watson accidentally innovated the telephone
while experimenting to improve the telegraph.

The mechanics, once I looked into them, were elegantly simple. According to Britannica, the device relied on a drum-like cylinder with a covered end, connected to a needle. When someone spoke into the cylinder, sound waves caused the covering to vibrate. That vibration moved the needle, converting the sound into an electric current. The current then traveled along a wire to a receiver, which reversed the process, turning the electrical signal back into audible sound on the other end. Just three days after filing, Bell tested that process himself, speaking the first intelligible words ever carried by telephone.

It was a rudimentary system by today's standards, but it worked. And it worked well enough to launch an industry.

Bell and his investors created the Bell Telephone Company
to commercialize his new device, which later became AT&T.

Bell didn't stop at the patent, either. He went on to co-found the Bell Telephone Company in 1877, which later grew into the American Telephone and Telegraph Company — better known as AT&T — the infrastructure that would eventually connect households across the United States. What started as a failed attempt to improve the telegraph became, in my view, one of the most consequential accidents in communication history.

The ripple effects were massive. For the first time, people could have real-time conversations across long distances — something the telegraph, with its slow, coded messages, could never offer. Businesses coordinated faster. Emergency services became more reachable. Families and friends stayed connected in ways that simply hadn't been possible before.

The telephone has evolved tremendously
over the past 150 years.

But researching this, I also came to appreciate that the telephone's arrival wasn't without friction. Early phone lines were often shared between multiple households, meaning conversations weren't always as private as users assumed. The device also began blurring the boundary between work and personal life, making people reachable at nearly any hour — a tension I recognize immediately, since it still defines my own relationship with my phone more than a century later.

Nearly 150 years later, I think Bell's accidental discovery remains one of the clearest examples in history of an invention outgrowing its original purpose. He set out to solve a wiring problem. Instead, he solved the much larger problem of distance itself — and in doing so, permanently changed how the world talks to each other.

_________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using Claude. After choosing a topic and beginning to research the telephone's history myself, I told Claude what I had already found and asked it to expand on my research. I then asked Claude to organize the research into a blog post format and correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I then tasked Claude to provide links of supplemental information that support the research, which I then embedded into the blog post. I also added pictures and captions to this post.

_________________________________________________ 

Where are the Anti-War Voices?

Anti-war voices have faced censorship and legal restrictions when challenging those in power.

We hear about wars going on all the time. The jarring headlines grab our attention and tell us what to think before we can even form a thought of our own. The news tells us where the wars are happening, who is involved, why the wars are supposedly necessary, and how we can support our country fighting in it.

    The perspectives given the most spotlight shape how 

Americans understand major political issues, including war.

We often think of the news as a place where we can get a decently-well rounded, factual story. But, can we really get the full story if some of the voices are being silenced? If wars affect an entire country, shouldn't we have access to all the different perspectives and opinions on it? The lack of strong antiwar voices in mainstream news raises an interesting question about what information actually reaches us, and what information is being strategically concealed. 

Most of us have probably heard of CNN, Fox News, or NBC. But how many people have heard of the websites dedicated to speaking out against U.S military intervention? Not many. If strong antiwar voices are out there, which they are, why do we have to actively search for them instead of them popping up on our headlines like the mainstream news? 

War is arguably the biggest issue a nation can face, yet the conversation surrounding it can become one-sided without us even noticing. Sometimes, finding a different perspective means knowing where to look for it.

Millions of Americans have publicly opposed wars

but have not received equal media attention.

When searching for these other perspectives and anti war voices, two websites stood out to me: Antiwar.com and The American Conservative. Neither of these websites will pop up on your internet feed without you having to actively search for them. I never had heard of either of these websites before because I had not looked for them. 

Both sources do have very loud anti war voices, and in fact, they display a strong support for the antiwar movement. If I did not search and find this website, I may not have even known there was currently such as large movement for antiwar in my country. 

That is why stories concerning issues such as Iuliia Mendel, the president's former press secretary, stating she is being politically persecuted and headlines such as "Trump's Govt Makes 'Treasonous' Claim of Weapons Shortages" are not making it to our mainstream feed. 

Government agendas can control the narrative
we believe while silencing opposing voices. 

I believe this is no accident. I believe that this is evidence of the government's hand strategically filtering our news sources and internet feeds to push the agenda they want us to be in support of. I believe this could be evidence of a larger system that influences what stories, opinions, and perspectives have the spotlight for the American public to see.

Whether this influence comes directly from the government, media organizations, or the algorithms that control what appears in our feeds, the results are the same: we may be exposed to certain ideas more often than others so that the government can push their agenda on us to follow.

_________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: AI was not used in the composition of this blog post. 

_________________________________________________ 

Privacy In a Digital World

Digital technology has made it easier for organizations to collect, store, and analyze personal information.

    Leaked phone numbers 

can be targeted by spammers

I've always tried to be aware of how technology collected information about us, but I did not realize just how much data is gathered every day. After watching the TED Talk videos linked below, I was shocked by how easily our movements, habits, and personal information can be tracked without us even noticing.

These issues affect me, my friends, and my family because so much of our everyday lives happens through our phones and online. Even just by having a mobile device, thousands of others have access to my personal data. Privacy concerns are not limited to governments either. Private companies collect, store, and sometimes sell personal information, which helps explain why our phone numbers and email addresses can be so valuable to marketers and scammers. 

I have experienced this with spammers calling me for months almost on a daily basis and using phone numbers with my hometown area code. In addition, I also have received more specific personalized ads through the mail since turning eighteen even without me signing up for anything. It makes me wonder how much more information about me is out there without me even realizing it.

    Cell-site simulators can be used to 

track or identify nearby mobile devices

The government should be able to use technology to protect people, but there also needs to be a clear line between safety and unnecessary surveillance. Technologies like automatic license plate readers and Stingrays can collect information about ordinary people who have done nothing wrong. The videos mentioned how this technology can be abused, such as placing license plate readers near mosques to monitor who was attending. Stingrays can also identify cell phones in any specific area. Something as simple as having my phone turned on allows it to create a record of where I have been. 

Personally, I do not want to feel watched during my daily life and my location or activities being tracked. I believe the government should have limits on how this information is collected, stored, and used so that technology meant to protect people does not become a way to invade their privacy.

As American citizens, we also have a responsibility to protect ourselves. We should be more aware of what we post, share, like, photograph, and search because our digital footprint can last much longer than we expect. The second video described this as a digital tattoo, and I think that is a powerful comparison. Just like a tattoo can tell a story about someone, our online presence can create a lasting version of who we are. We currently may not be able to stop the mass amount of data collected from us without our consent, but we can do our part by being cautious of what we post and are allowing the government and these companies to have easy access to. 

    Your phone is always listening—

turning private chats into targeted data

The biggest thing I took away from these videos is that privacy is no longer just about keeping secrets. It is about understanding that pieces of our lives can become permanent. The most chilling idea from the videos was the question, “How else can you threaten someone without death?” The answer was “with immortality.” 

That idea perfectly captures the reality of a digital tattoo. What we post, share, like, photograph, and search may outlast us. Because of that, I think we need to place more responsibility on ourselves to be more cautious with our personal information. We need to be more intentional about what we leave behind. We may not be able to control who is watching, but we can have more control over what parts of ourselves we choose to make immortal.

_________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using Microsoft-Copilot. I took detailed notes while watching two 5-minute videos about issues concerning privacy in the current digital age. In addition to facts that I learned, I emphasized my own reactions and opinions while watching. I then asked Copilot to help me improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation. I then asked Copilot to help me 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. I also completely altered a lot of the text with my own personal opinions and statements to reflect my own individual thinking.

_________________________________________________ 

WATCH THE VIDEOS NOW

Value of Free Expression

The First Amendment gives people the freedom to express their thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs. Free expression is important for more reasons than just being able to speak freely though. The eight values of free expression explain the different ways this freedom benefits both individuals and society as a whole. The First Amendment allows people to express themselves freely, participate in government, speak up about injustice, stand up for unpopular opinions, challenge those in power, and discover more about others as well as themselves. All of these play such a vital role in how our world functions, and the eight values of free expression demonstrate how each value contributes to a thriving society. 

"Living Originalsim" by
 Jack Balkin, 2011

The value of free expression that resonated with me the most was to promote innovation. In his book "Living Originalism", Jack Balkin explains how originalism and living constitutionalism are complementary instead of contradictory. He argues that the Constitution put into place a permanent framework using fixed rules while also having flexible standards and abstract principles. This idea pushes innovation by using the Constitution as a foundation for later generations to build on by new ideas, public debate, political action, and challenging the government. In his other work "The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age", Balkin expands more explicitly on how a society where free speech is encouraged is likely to be a more fulfilling community for its citizens. By allowing people to voice their opinions, beliefs, thoughts, and identities, society is also encouraging personal growth and individual autonomy in its citizens. 

Human innovation encouraged by free expression

      I believe that this value of free expression is the most important because without innovation there is no progress. Innovation takes novel ideas created by individuals and turns it into valuable solutions that solve real problems. This is what drives our world forward. Ideas alone don't connect billions of people across the world just with the tap of a handheld device. Ideas alone also don't harness electric power to bring light to dark places without needing fire. Ideas alone don't transform human transportation, breakthrough barriers in medicine, revolutionize data processing and automation, create DNA alteration tools, build architectural wonders, or reach any other great human achievement.  Ideas alone don't create innovation. Talk does. When people start talking about their far-fetched ideas that seem impossible, others have the chance to say "wait, that just might work". When people start talking about their dreams that they themselves may not even believe in, they feel less foolish when others have the same aspirations they do. Talking takes the ideas that burn inside of us and makes it real. When it feels real, there's a responsibility to do something about it that's attached too. And that is the start of innovation.

Creators of the 20% Rule Larry Page and Sergey Brin

First, people have to talk though. And for people to share their thoughts, opinions, values, beliefs, and ideas with others, they have to be in an environment where that is encouraged. A successful example of promoting innovation through free expression is Google's 20% Time Rule. This rule allows employees to dedicate 20% of their workweek to projects they are passionate about outside of their normal job tasks that could benefit the company. This model encourages self-actualization, which is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This time dedicated to fulfilling personal interests and pursuing personal goals empowers employees to be more creative and innovative. Google's 20% Time Rule ended up being the reason Google News, Gmail, and AdSense were created. These innovations are prime examples of how free expression and promoting innovation is essential for progress in society as a whole. 

A society that does not encourage free expression does not promote innovation, and in turn, does not inspire growth. Growth is needed to improve things and find solutions to problems, and without innovation, issues remain unsolved. Innovation happens in an environment where people feel safe to express their opinions, ideas, and individual voices, and this is why this value of expression is most important to me. Without promoting innovation, nothing ever changes. Promoting innovation, however, that is what has the power to change the world. 

_________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: AI was not used in the composition of this blog post. 

_________________________________________________ 

My Top Sources Of News and Information

Instagram:

The majority of my news comes from social media, specifically Instagram. After seeing and interacting with one initial post, it is easy to go down a rabbit hole of interesting related topics. Usually, I will see a news segment that has been formatted into short form content from the original news source itself, such as Fox, CNN, ESPN, etc. Other times, I will see alarming scenes from recent events that will spark my attention and cause me to do further research with more credible sources outside of social media. I try to do additional research if an Instagram news post or reel has influenced me before I fully believe anything. 

TikTok: 

Similarly to Instagram, TikTok is probably one of my top sources for news because it is the social media platform most often. I spend a lot more time scrolling on TikTok than I do watching traditional news channels, so I naturally come across a lot of current events there. I also appreciate how I can see different people’s opinions and perspectives on the same story without it being as censored or biased as professional news channels. Just like with Instagram, I try to do my own research before completely believing something, especially if it is a serious or controversial topic.

Google: 

Google is another source I use pretty often, especially when I want to find out more about something I saw on social media. If I see a story that makes me curious or something that I am not sure is true, I will usually Google it and read a few different articles. I like being able to compare information from different sources instead of just trusting the first thing that comes up. I do my best to look for a “.gov”, “.edu” or “.org” when looking for reliable sources. I also use Google when I want more details about a story because social media usually only gives me a shortened version of what happened.

Apple News: 

I would say Apple News is one of my less active news sources, but I still see news through it pretty regularly. I will sometimes get notifications about major stories or see headlines when I am checking other things since it is on my phone. I like that Apple News has a lot of different news stories, but I do not usually go out of my way to open it and read the news. Most of the time, I hear about something through TikTok or Instagram first and then may see more information about it through Apple News on my notifications screen. 

Word of Mouth:

I hear about current events through my friends, family, classmates, and people around me in addition to the news sources listed above. Sometimes I will hear someone talking about an event or issue that happened and realize that I had not seen it online yet. This can make me curious enough to look up the story myself and figure out what actually happened, which is where Google comes into play. I do not usually rely on word of mouth as my main source because information can
easily get misunderstood or changed when it is passed from person to person. It is still interesting to me, especially how we all can be told different things about the same stories depending on our personal algorithms and news sources.