I think I would just want people to be more civil in online discussion. It feels like people forget that on the other side of the screen there is a person, and they only see others as the beliefs they represent. If people could just step back for a moment, and realize they are talking to another person, who's presence on social media is a tiny fraction of who they are.

This course has definitely made me more aware of how useful of a tool social media can be. I was really surprised by how much you can learn by just changing the data present on social media into numerical values which tell a story.

I wonder if social media hasn't reached this point because it's a newer industry. I'm curious to see what happens over the coming years, especially with the potential for some competition to be removed with the possible banning of tik tok.

I find it interesting when accessability is most beneficial for a company. It both increases their user base, and makes them appear more positively in the public eye. It makes me a bit dubious when people praise them for this however. Them move is likely not made out of the kindness of their heart, and more out of it furthering their goals.

I feel like the broad overuse of the term canceled has led to it losing a lot of credibility. If it was reserved just for the worst offenders who came from an intentionally negitive angle, then it holds a lot more power.

It's nice seeing people reflect upon their actions online. It feels like that almost never happens nowadays, and I'm curious why that might be. Could it have to do with people being so divided that they refuse to accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

I feel like this form of harassment comes from a feeling of powerlessness. Many people feel that they are suffering at the hands of billionaires, and as a result will feel no remorse when harassing them.

With social media, are there instances where some places have laws around harassment while others do not? Like, what happens if a person harrassing someone else is in a state with no regulation around it, while the person on the recieving end is? do they have any legal recourse?

Are there any estimates on what the ratio of registered to unregistered bots there are? Will there ever be a point where the number of unregistered bost makes it so that more often than not you are talking to bots or ai rather than actual people on social media?

I'm curious if this was jusrt a one off thing or if it has been repeated, and also what sort of impact it has on public perception of movies. Like, how often is a movie judged over critically because people go in expecting the worst due to bots making it seem worse than it is?

I find it interesting how quickly people do this. Like, as soon as a company releases some sort of chat function, people try to see how badly they can break it. I wonder if it comes from a place of curiosity or boredom.

This shows the sheer amount of power that internet users have when they are coordinated. But on the other hand, it shows that there definitely needs to be guidelines in place. The fact that people could coordinate and take a photo of this person without their knowlege is insane.

This framework has had an uptick in recent years with the hustle culture side of the internet becoming more relevant. This can be seen as good or bad, more people striving to be the best will lead to more inovation, but a society that lacks compassion for one another.

A failed example this reminds me of is when elon musk said he would let the general population of twitter tell him whether or not to step down. It ended up going the opposite of how he expected, and he chose to go back on his word.

Does the nature of these two groups make it so that people think that there are less lurkers than there really are? Like, does the vocal minority drown out the existence of the quiet majority to the eyes of someone on the outside?

Is there any reason to have a character limit like this for last names? What is the point of limiting such a specific thing?

The fact that data can be manipulated like this, meaning different things based on who in interpriting it, is interesting through a political lense. How often are statistics seen in a certain way just to push an agenda? Are they really presenting false data, or choosing to not include accounts that both use bots and human imput?

This makes sense, but I did not expect it. Stories of companies outsourcing labor to countries that pay less is nothing new, but I never considered the ease at which social media companies can do this. Unlike a sweatshop, overseas employees just need a computer.

I find this super interesting, as you always hear about overuse of content moderation from the govornment, but almost never hear about abuse of under moderation by the govornment. It feels like the govornment almost sinking to the level of trolling which I just find funny.

This is something a streamer Ludwig talked a lot about a few years ago. He showed that a healthy situation can exist provided the right boundaries are in place. He touches on this by clearly stating to his audience "he is not their friend."

It's crazy that just the phones from which the tweets were posted was enough to tell all of this. I feel like this really reenforces the importance of being careful about what you put out there, as even the smallest details are enough to tell a lot.

As social media has become more prevailent, there seems to be an increase of people doing more harmful pranks. This may be because doing the more extreme/harmful thing will get more attention on social media, but it's interesting to see how the internet has influenced pre internet forms of trolling.

The number of people who don't understand this nowadays is becoming insane. I feel like this might be because of the ever increasing user base of the internet and social media. as more people join, less and less people actually know how to act, and as a result we have trolls running rampent in the comments of reels and posts.

This reminds me of the dr disrespect controversy earlier this year. Not the actual substance of it, but the implication that twitch was able to go into twitch wispers without either party knowing to find a break in TOS

I hadn't considered the amout of power employees hold in this regard. I'm curious what screening employees might have to go through prior to employment as a precaution for something like this.

I think this links to a broader issue of employers being able to see employees social media. People have to be careful what they say online because there is the possibility of backlash from their employer.

It's interesting that trying to prevent talk about suicide online has indirectly led to people trying to talk about it more. I remember an older meme where people would try to get around this on roblox by saying things like "sewer slide."

I feel like more and more people are realizing how effective this is at stirring up engagement. The concept of rage baiting to try and get someone to lash out at what you are saying has almost become commonplace in any post with loose connection to politics.

I find it interesting that this concept has lived on in the internet era. Memes like this still exist, and while they don't hold the same "examples" of good and bad luck, they maintain a very similar message.

Is there a way to get around this without being a huge invasion of privacy? Something like how we are able to tell sentiments of certain subreddits, but by having the reccomendations service analyze sentiments of your posts regarding that person.

I've been messing around with this a bit on instagram. By hovering over a certain post for it's full duration, you can make most of the following reels the same type of post.

Does this trend change in the context of social media? I feel like the access to anonymity online could be an outlet for someone to drop the mask for a bit.

This seems like an issue that has been going on forever. I am curious to see if it has become less prevailent in recent years as people have become more aware of it. I am also curious what role social media may play in this, as it provides a platform for people to call this sort of stuff out.

I don't understand how this is permitted. I feel like for people's data to be used by a company, they should at least have to recieve the benifit of using whatever service that company is provided.

I find this to be a very disturbing and ethically questionable buisiness model. The fact that these companies are explicitly made to make society less productive is something I find very concerning.

Ok, I've definitely gone down the youtube rabbit hole of watching various things this group has done. It's interesting to know that a group who had an actual impact on the world started as a 4chan group.

This is fairly interesting, and something my discussion partner brought up in week two. I get that in some sense books are considered social media, but I feel like they have slipped away from that definition with new social media platforms becoming more and more prevailent. My biggest question regarding this is whether or not the lack of ability to recieve feedback directly through a boom would disqualify it from a more modern understanding of what constitutes social media.