You aren’t likely to end up in a situation as dramatic as this.
I feel like this example is fairly good regardless. Sure we wont be in such a serious situation such as this, but knowing the worst situations of what is to come, helps us prepare for the smaller ones we might face.
We hope that if you find yourself in one of these positions, you consider the ethics of what you are doing
I feel like after this class, i have a better understanding of how moderation works. I used to have a simple belief thinking that moderation was simply just a bad woprd filter, but it is much more.
The subtitle of the above Time Magazine article is “Mark Zuckerberg is on a crusade to put every single human being online.” In it, Mark Zuckerberg outlines his humanitarian goal of trying to get every human on earth an Internet connection. Zuckerberg claims he is doing this for benevolent reasons and not selfish ones.
It is unlikley there is not SOME personal gain involved in his statement. I wouldn't be surprised if he started something to meet this goal, and lets say there was a way to get everyone an internet connection via giving out free routers, and it turns out, you need to make a facebook account to use said item. Now the user is exposed to Facebook, which can be addicting for some who have not yet experienced social media yet (which is likely since the people(s) did not have internet before this hypothetical event).
The physical device didn’t work well. The hand-powered generator was unreliable, the screen too small to read. OLPC was not actually providing a “superior” product to the rest of the world. When they did hand out some, it didn’t come with good instructions. Kids were just supposed to figure it out on their own. If this failed, it must be the fault of the poor people around the world.
I feel like for something like this, there needs to be very very clear instructions, especially if the kids' parents themselves have no idea how computers work either. Nonetheless its a good idea and it aims in the right direction, but with the way things are now, there has to be a more organized and efficient way to make this work.
Proportionality: The negative consequences of shaming someone should not be worse than the positive consequences
The concept behind this makes a lot of sense. The purpose is to help the other person grow, not envy the entire situation to the point they may even do it again out of spite.
The real power of shame is it can scale. It can work against entire countries and can be used by the weak against the strong. Guilt, on the other hand, because it operates entirely within individual psychology, doesn’t scale
I feel like guilt can be used outside of individual psychology as well. Hence why guilt tripping is a thing people often use
Have you experienced or witnessed harassment on social media (that you are willing to share about)?
I've seen it happen so many times before, that ive honestly got used to seeing it. It has never happened to me personally, but in places like twitter or Instagram, god forbid you disagree with anybody there, it turns into a bar fight (virtually).
Bullying: like sending mean messages through DMs Cyberstalking: Continually finding the account of someone, and creating new accounts to continue following them. Or possibly researching the person’s physical location.
I think these are the first normally thouhgt of things when we think online harassment. Often it never leads to anything good.
Anonymity: Some forms of communication make anonymity nearly impossible (like an in-person conversation), while others make it easy to remain anonymous. -Audience: Communication could be private or public, and they could be one-way (no ability to reply), or two+-way where others can respond.
This is somewhat of what a lot of social media does. If it doesn''t outright use this, it has some form of feature available to its users.
Wikipedia: Is an online encyclopedia whose content is crowdsourced. Anyone can contribute, just go to an unlocked Wikipedia page and press the edit button. Institutions don’t get special permissions (e.g., it was a scandal when US congressional staff edited Wikipedia pages), and the expectation that editors do not have outside institutional support is intended to encourage more people to contribute.
Wikipidia, for these reasons, seem to be something that teachers want their students to avoid. Since anyone with an account can make changes, it can make it unreliable
In the contexts of social media and public debate, moderation has a meaning that is about creating limits and boundaries about what is posted to keep things working well
I see moderation very commonly nowadays. For example, discord mods, twitch mods, etc, who all have the responsibility of keeping everyone using the service (in the mentioned examples, it would be servers and live chats), to make sure everyone is following the set out rules.
One of the ways social media can be beneficial to mental health is in finding community (at least if it is a healthy one, and not toxic like in the last sectio
Yes i said something similar to this in that section as well. If you look in the wrong places, you will find stuff that wont help you.
While there are healthy ways of sharing difficult emotions and experiences (see the next section), when these difficult emotions and experiences are thrown at unsuspecting and unwilling audiences, that is called trauma dumping. Social media can make trauma dumping easier. For example, with parasocial relationships, you might feel like the celebrity is your friend who wants to hear your trauma. And with context collapse, where audiences are combined, how would you share your trauma with an appropriate audience and not an inappropriate one
I feel like if you want to vent, it should be done in person. Online, people tend to be much harsher, unless you go to a specific place where these things are welcomed and common.
“Tendency to continue to surf or scroll through bad news, even though that news is saddening, disheartening, or depressing. Many people are finding themselves reading continuously bad news about COVID-19 without the ability to stop or step back.”
I feel like you can only step back so much though. Sometimes, the bad news in question is just everywhere and unavoidable. Unless you put down your phone completely
When content is replicated on social media, it may be modified. The Social media system might have built-in ways to do this, like a quote tweet or reply adding some sort of comment to the original post, effectively making a new version of the post that can spread around.
I see this often on reddit. People add comments on the end saying Edit: yada yada yada. This is also prevalent on YouTube.
Actions such as: liking, reposting, replying, and paid promotion get the original posting to show up for users more
Nowadays, I see less and less of these things (aside from twitter and TikTok). For example, disliking a video or tweet is not allowed anymore on places like twitter and YouTube.
What experiences do you have of social media sites making particularly good recommendations for you?
I have seen apps like tiktok bring up more and more stuff that I tend to like or view more on my for you page. But it is a known fact that tiktok strongly relies on their algorithm
They don’t want another social media site copying their hard work in coming up with an algorithm
This happened with a game im pretty sure. This is referring to social media, but there was a game that someone had backend access to, and after getting fired, he exposed said information. And someone made an indie game off of it.
Most humans are trichromats, meaning they can see three base colors (red, green, and blue), along with all combinations of those three colors. Human societies often assume that people will be trichromats.
I just realized that this is how RGB cololr naming started. I also didnt know ,most of the colors we look at are made of these.
If tall grocery store shelves were made with the assumption that people would be able to reach them, then people who are short, or who can’t lift their arms up, or who can’t stand up, all would have a disability in that situation.
Yeah so basically i think this is a way of saying a social norm. As the description states, soceity expets them to have these things, even though they dont have the ability.
But while that is the proper security for storing passwords. So for example, Facebook stored millions of Instagram passwords in plain text, meaning the passwords weren’t encrypted and anyone with access to the database could simply read everyone’s passwords. And Adobe encrypted their passwords improperly and then hackers leaked their password database of 153 million users.
I always wondered what the big deal about this was in some sorts. I watched a youtube video that showed how all of these companies where selling their user's inputs anyway, so i never saw why people cared all of a sudden.
These include the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
I feel like the EU's general handeling of situations like social media is a lot more people friendly than the US approach. It seems that in the EU, they are purring their people first.
Speaking in a formal manner when giving a presentation or answering questions in a courtroom may be a way of authentically sharing your experiences and emotions, but tailored to the setting
I think this is a good analogy. Depending on the setting, there are different ways to express yourself. you wouldn't win anything by going into court screaming at anyone, but being formal and modest would do the trick.
Elon Musk also decided to remove the ability to look up a tweet’s source.
How ethical is this realistically? I understand he owns the app, but i wonder if this is more personally motivated than really following the rules.
4Chan has various image-sharing bulletin boards, where users post anonymously. Perhaps the most infamous board is the “/b/” board for “random” topics. This board emphasizes “free speech” and “no rules” (with exceptions for child pornography and some other illegal content). In these message boards, users attempt to troll each other and post the most shocking content they can come up with. They also have a history of collectively choosing a target website or community and doing a “raid” where they all try to join and troll and offend the people in that community.
I remember being told this in elementary school, and was advised to avoid it. For the exact same reason described: it had no rules. I actually was tricked into thinking it was a dark web website, since I had never heard about a website that had essentially no rules (except illegal activity.)
In the 1980s and 1990s, Bulletin board system (BBS) provided more communal ways of communicating and sharing messages. In these systems, someone would start a “thread” by posting an initial message. Others could reply to the previous set of messages in the thread.
This kind of sounds similar to reddit! While it might not feel as modern for obvious reasons, the concept of replying in threads seems to be a theme in reddit. I am pretty sure reddit is also fairly old, so maybe that is why.
Data points often give the appearance of being concrete and reliable, especially if they are numerical. So when Twitter initially came out with a claim that less than 5% of users are spam bots, it may have been accepted by most people who heard it. Elon Musk then questioned that figure and attempted to back out of buying Twitter, and Twitter is accusing Musk’s complaint of being an invented excuse to back out of the deal, and the case is now in court.
This is actually very interesting. maybe he did this in an attempt to ruin twitters management's (at the time) image? If the public thought that twitter was trying to hide something like this it may have convinced them to sell to Elon, or any potential buyer a bit quicker to get rid of the heat.
The Dictionary data type allows programmers to combine several pieces of data by naming each piece. When we do this, the dictionary will have a number of names, and for each of those names a piece of information (called a “value” in this context).
Does the dictionary have a certain point or limit it cannot be pushed too? is it programmed or can it be programmed to handle certain words that may not be properly written (i.e. slang)?
A photo that is likely from a click-farm, where a human computer is paid to do actions through multiple accounts
I never knew a click farm was an actual thing! It is very interesting that some companies/people prefer this over using computer automation (although im sure it is complicated in this sense, so this is probably prefered)
Note that sometimes people use “bots” to mean inauthentically run accounts, such as those run by actual humans, but are paid to post things like advertisements or political content. We will not consider those to be bots, since they aren’t run by a computer.
Actually, and I may be wrong, the bots referred to in this paragraph, can be ran by computers. Now, it may be unlikely and is usually ran by a human being, but there have been sometimes where I've seen inauthentically ran accounts being ran by some type of source code.
Started out as a critique of the idea, popular in some circles following World War 2, that men are naturally more fully developed, and more morally mature, than women.
I did not know this surfaced around World war 2. I felt like this ideology might've been a lot older than this.
The concept of Ubuntu is traditional in Sub-Saharan Africa, but this summary of Ubuntu is more modern and was popularized globally by Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. There are also other different definitions of Ubuntu.
Something not mentioned here that I learned in another class is Ubuntu's relationship with Restorative Justice (punishment for wrongdoing). In some African communities, Ubuntu has a big impact on how they handle justice and conflicts. Instead of punishing people who do wrong, they focus on making things right and bringing peace back to the community. People who make mistakes are encouraged to admit their actions, fix what they did wrong, and try to make things right with the people they hurt and with the whole community.