If I could magically change something about how social media sites operate as businesses, I would focus on making them prioritize user well-being over profit. I would ensure that these platforms protect users from harmful content and make it easier to find positive, helpful information. Social media companies should also be more transparent about how they collect and use data, giving users more control over their privacy. Instead of rewarding divisive or harmful posts, they could promote content that encourages understanding, kindness, and healthy discussions.

If I could magically change anything about how people behave on social media, it would be to foster more empathy and respect in online interactions. I would encourage people to take a moment to consider the feelings of others before posting or commenting, making it a space where kindness and constructive conversation thrive. Reducing impulsive negativity and promoting open-mindedness would help create a more supportive and less divisive environment. Ultimately, I believe social media could be a powerful tool for connection and understanding if people focused more on empathy and less on conflict.

If governments prohibited social media sites from profiting through personal data or targeted advertising, platforms might shift to subscription-based models, freemium services, or focus on revenue from partnerships and sponsorships. Social media could prioritize user experience over ad optimization, potentially leading to less invasive interfaces and more transparent data practices. However, smaller platforms might struggle to sustain operations without ad revenue, possibly resulting in a more consolidated market dominated by larger companies.

In a capitalist economic system, markets are largely driven by private enterprise, as exemplified by the economic model of the United States. In such a system, resources and production are privately owned, and enterprises aim to make a profit. The rise of entrepreneurial culture and technological innovation is a reflection of the fact that capitalism encourages competition. In addition, capital markets provide an important source of financing for enterprises, further contributing to economic growth.

On Twitter, the platform’s design amplifies public shaming and makes reconciliation difficult. The rapid spread of tweets through retweets and quote tweets often removes context, reducing complex situations to viral soundbites. The permanence of tweets ensures that even after an apology or clarification, the original shaming incident continues to circulate. Furthermore, Twitter’s character limit discourages nuanced discussion, while the lack of enforced moderation allows harassment to persist. These factors create an environment where repairing harm or fostering meaningful dialogue is challenging, leaving individuals with long-lasting reputational damage.

Public shaming becomes problematic when it disproportionately harms the individual, lacks accountability, or arises from misinformation. Key factors include: the power imbalance between the shamer and the shamed, the severity of the public's reaction compared to the alleged wrongdoing, and whether the intent is to educate or to humiliate. Additionally, public shaming based on false or incomplete information can cause irreparable damage to someone's reputation, making it especially harmful. Ethical considerations also arise when shaming overlooks the humanity of the individual, reducing them to a target rather than addressing the issue constructively.

Social media platforms should adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward crowd harassment and focus on prevention and accountability rather than determining whether it is "justified." To reduce harassment, platforms can enhance moderation tools to detect coordinated attacks, empower users with options like muting keywords or limiting interactions, and improve transparency in handling reports. Educational campaigns promoting positive online behavior can also help foster a healthier digital environment. Justifying harassment in any instance risks inconsistency and harm, making it essential to prioritize fairness and user protection above subjective judgments.

I do not believe crowd harassment is ever justified. Harassment, regardless of its form or the number of people involved, is inherently harmful and undermines basic principles of respect and dignity. While some might argue that crowd actions can serve as a way to hold individuals accountable, harassment crosses the line from accountability to cruelty.

A social media company holds significant responsibility for crowd actions on its platform, as they provide the space and tools that can either amplify or mitigate such actions. They should establish strong moderation systems and clear guidelines to prevent harm caused by misinformation or harassment, especially during sensitive events. While individual users contribute to these actions, the platform must implement safeguards to protect against cases where crowds may target innocent individuals. Without oversight, platforms risk enabling real-world harm, making it crucial for them to actively monitor and manage user behavior responsibly.

It’s truly heartbreaking to think of the pain Sunil Tripathi’s family endured during an already difficult time. What was intended to be a search for justice spiraled into baseless accusations that not only disrupted their grief but also damaged the memory of their loved one. This case shows how even with good intentions, actions can go terribly wrong and hurt innocent people—reminding us to be cautious and empathetic, especially in situations that deeply affect lives.

This question really resonates with me because I’ve actually reported inappropriate posts before and, honestly, it felt a bit disappointing when nothing happened. It raises questions about how much attention platforms really pay to user reports and if they’re doing enough to handle these issues. It makes me wonder about the criteria they use and if maybe they’re missing a way to make people feel heard in these situations.

Setting boundaries on social media isn't just about control, but about keeping conversations constructive and respectful. This balance reflects the ethical side of moderation—aiming for harmony both within ourselves and in our interactions. It’s a great reminder that the virtues we aim for personally can have meaningful applications even in something as modern as online content moderation.

Social media can indeed provide unique opportunities to find like-minded people and supportive communities, especially when someone may feel isolated in their immediate environment. Beyond finding supportive communities to counteract bullying, social media can also offer resources for coping strategies and mental health education. For instance, platforms often feature groups or influencers focused on self-care, resilience, and positive reinforcement that can encourage people to share their experiences and find strength in others’ stories.

This passage does a solid job explaining trauma dumping and how social media enables it, but I think it could be even stronger by exploring why people might end up trauma dumping and what impact it has on others. Sometimes, people do it because they feel alone or misunderstood, and understanding this can help build empathy.

Some trending topics on the internet often lose their positive impact as they spread. I've seen some people on TikTok using instruments to collaborate on duets, and it's genuinely interesting. But the thing like this aren't a good thing. Still, we can't entirely prevent these things from happening—it’s always a mix of pros and cons.

This reminds me of similar chain messages I encountered back in middle school. For example, there would be messages saying that if you saw it, you had to forward it, or else you'd have bad luck. I never expected that similar letters or messages had already existed so long ago

I often encounter various ad pushes, and it bothers me. While ads do help users discover items of interest, and social platforms are able to run for free because of ad revenue, there are quite a few things about them that are offensive. Some ads can be overtly biased and only shown to a specific group of people, which can lead to unfairness. In addition, advertisements sometimes reveal personal privacy, displaying sensitive information about users in unexpected contexts, a situation that is even more disturbing.

I think the recommendation algorithm is getting more and more accurate, and every time I'm interested in something, it always pushes it to me quietly. Whether it's sorted by time or based on friend interactions, content popularity, or my browsing habits, the algorithms are able to combine a variety of factors to accurately recommend content, and may even refer to my geographic location. This probably explains why sometimes, just by talking about a certain topic, relevant content appears in the recommendations.

The concept of “acting as though they were not disabled” can sometimes carry an implicit pressure to conform to societal norms, which may inadvertently reinforce the idea that a person's worth is tied to their ability to function like a "typical" person. In contrast, embracing a more inclusive view of assistive technology could help shift perspectives, valuing diverse ways of moving, seeing, or processing information.

This reminds me that if most people are born with tails, then those without tails are considered “disabled”. This is because society's definition of “normal” is based on the majority of the population, and any trait that deviates from this standard is considered abnormal, or even inadequate. This phenomenon also illustrates the limitations of society's criteria for “disability”. Our definition of “ability” tends to be functional, but if the function is not useful in most settings, it is ignored or not even valued.

Every time I register for a new account, I’m always prompted to agree to the terms and conditions, but like most people, I never really read through them. It’s concerning to think about what could be hidden in those lengthy documents—things that might infringe on my rights without me even realizing it. Unclear privacy rules can easily conceal important details.

The impact of information leaks on our lives is quite significant. The leakage of phone numbers and personal details makes it easier for scammers to deceive people. I also often feel like my phone is monitoring my social media activity. Whenever I mention something I want to buy, within a few days, shopping platforms start showing me ads for that exact item, even if I've never searched for it. This kind of targeted advertising feels intrusive, as if my privacy is being constantly observed.

It made me realize how unpredictable, even unexpected, the influence of social media can be. A seemingly innocuous video can have such a profound impact on scientific research that the data can no longer be used. It also made me think about the importance of data quality and diversity, and how to prevent this kind of “data pollution” from happening again.

It’s alarming that even interests or vulnerabilities, such as a susceptibility to financial scams or addiction, can be guessed from online behavior. What’s even more disturbing is the use of AI to repackage debunked, racist theories about facial features to make judgments about people. Social media also plays a role in tracking broader trends, like how misinformation spreads, which affects public opinion on a massive scale. It's a reminder of how our online data is used in ways we might not even realize, sometimes with harmful consequences.

I think this passage makes a valid point. Some individuals actually get excited by the harassment it self, and this only encourages them to continue. The traditional advice of “don’t feed the trolls” may not be effective because it doesn't address the underlying thrill they derive from their actions. Instead, the only way to truly stop them is to make them feel the same pain, discomfort, and severe consequences that they inflict on others. I’m glad that technology, like automated moderation systems, can assist in this area by filtering out harmful content and providing a safer online environment.

I don't understand the behavior of hurting others for amusement. A joke is only funny when both parties find it amusing; otherwise, it becomes harassment and bullying. Many people like to use "just joking" as an excuse to hurt others, but this actually hides their irresponsible actions. When one person's happiness is built on another person's pain, the so-called sense of humor loses its meaning. We should advocate for respect and understanding, rather than deriving pleasure from belittling others. A joke is only a joke when both sides can accept it with joy; otherwise, it only creates conflict and suffering.

Anonymity allow individuals to express harmful thoughts and opinions without fear of consequences. This lack of accountability can lead to increased instances of cyberbullying and online harassment. When people hide behind screens, they may forget that their words can hurt real individuals, resulting in a toxic online culture.

Authenticity on social media, especially regarding celebrities, can be misleading. While fans often feel connected to their favorite stars through posts, these interactions are usually managed by public relations teams. This creates a curated image that may lack the honesty of real communication. Although playful content can foster connection, it also emphasizes the artificial nature of these relationships, reminding us that the interactions are not as genuine as they might seem.

This reminds me of Lab 1, where I was so excited after successfully using code to post an article on Reddit. However, it also left me feeling a bit anxious when I considered the broader implications. It made me realize that so much content on the internet can be generated through code, and a single individual has the power to shape public opinion or even spark controversies with just a few lines of code. It's both empowering and a little daunting to think about how easily information can spread and influence people.

This passage really resonates with me because it highlights the fun and flexibility of programming. Seeing how a simple for loop can help follow a bunch of users makes everything feel so much more manageable.

This reminds me of every time I try to take a picture of my computer screen with my phone camera. The image always shows tiny red, green, and blue lights, which is probably due to a similar reason. A display is made up of many tiny pixels, and each of these pixels is composed of subpixels that emit red, green, or blue light. When you try to capture the screen, the camera picks up these individual subpixels, revealing the RGB pattern that our eyes don’t normally see. This highlights how the underlying structure of digital displays, just like the limitations of computer storage, affects what we see and how information is processed.

This reminds me that computers have a similar problem when dealing with characters. This is because computers use an encoding set that can only contain a limited number of symbols and characters. Overall, computers, as powerful as they are, still have limitations in storing and processing numbers and symbols. These limitations come from the underlying hardware design and coding methods, not because the computer “doesn't want” to recognize everything, but more from technical trade-offs and design decisions.

This example reminds me of how internet memes often carry political messages, but the creators remain anonymous. Just like the donkey in the protest, memes can convey strong opinions without directly involving the person behind them, making them powerful tools for spreading ideas while avoiding personal accountability.

With the rise of AI-generated videos and real people simulating the work of bots, the line between authenticity and artificiality on the internet is increasingly blurred. Much of this trend is driven by the pursuit of views and attention, as synthetic content often garners high engagement by appearing novel or controversial. This leads to skepticism about the authenticity of what we see online, as creators and platforms exploit the blending of human and machine for profit, creating a landscape where distinguishing real from fake becomes ever more challenging.

I'm from China and I learned a lot of Confucian concepts as a child, but I've never been a fan of them, I think there are too many Confucian rules. I’m drawn to Taoism because it encourages living authentically and in peace with the world around us. Its emphasis on balance, patience, and harmony offers a calm and flexible approach to life, much like water shaping landscapes over time without force. Taoism’s rejection of rigid structures and focus on spontaneity makes it feel freeing and adaptable to different situations in life.

Reading this paragraph reminds me of how I often come across perspectives online that I can't understand, but in reality, it's simply because we come from different cultural backgrounds, grew up in different environments, and received varying levels of education. I went from not understanding these perspectives to now appreciating and even welcoming diverse voices on the internet. I believe the internet has given the world an opportunity to communicate; without it, I might never have the chance to connect with people from distant regions in my lifetime.