The questions guiding this project were: "What happens when we observe the processes of surveillance without mentioning surveillance at all?" and "How would people react to these processes on their own?." The purpose of these questions in conjunction with the mediums of my project were to highlight the ways in which surveillance plays an active part in the ways in which one acts within their society. Surveillance as a tool for control, is one that can be observed through both tangible and intangible forms. The intangible in this study are defined as user engagement algorithms on social media and other content creation sites and the ways they influence, not just what people watch, but how what they watch comes to affect their politics and personal lives. The tangible in this study are defined as police equipment and government cameras, all used to influence how people act when knowing they are potentially being watched at all times. Together these patterns can be used to understand that surveillance measures deployed through any medium can come to influence the ways in which people think, act, and conduct themselves. 

Below is a short snippet from one of the papers I wrote during my Leadership in Action project:

Why and How Have the Alt-Right Maintained Such a Strong Hold On the Internet?

The alt-right has always been present on the internet by some means. What has changed in the last few decades, as the internet has become far more integral to the lives of everyday people, is the fact that the alt-right gained such a commanding presence over the internet, such to an extent that it is nearly impossible to avoid. However, there is more to the presence of the alt-right to be considered, rather than only the online sphere. The presence of the alt-right through any medium, not just the internet, showcases a deliberate lack of action by those in positions of power, and the fact that the alt-right has showcased its ability command such a significant presence on the internet in merely a few decades is the result of deliberate policy choices or lack thereof (Blair and Latif 2021). It is not enough to merely attribute the incompetence of the government or regulatory bodies as to what is going on online to old age or general ignorance. The average age of a congressperson may be well into geriatric, but what is occurring online has been occurring in different technological mediums for centuries, leading cause to believe there is a reason for their inaction besides that of supposed ignorance. Should one choose to accept the idea that those in power are too old and too technologically illiterate to fully understand the complexities of the tech industry and their respective content sites, such a line of thinking ignores the fact that those in power have access to advisors and intellectuals to make up for their shortcomings and the gaps in their knowledge. Those in power do not need to wholly understand the complexities of the tech industry to properly regulate them and the content hosted and promoted on their respective sites, they need only be able to understand the logic behind such companies and their content and act accordingly. While simple when put in such derivative terms, the point remains that the inaction of those in positions of power have allowed Tech Companies to have unbridled power over their users and furthermore, society as a whole.