If you could magically change anything about how social media sites operate as businesses, what would it be?
I'd make it so that the consumer was prioritized over revenue. I've noticed that a lot of sites (like pinterest, twitter, etc) have been integrating more and more ads into consumers feeds, which makes the overall user experience generally bad.
How have your views on social media changed (or been reinforced)?
Over the course of this class, I've realized that no matter how often or much social media sites say that they care about their users, they're probably still doing super shady things under the radar. I've also realized that some companies may claim to delete your data and account, but will still keep records of your account history without your knowledge.
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
This claim, in itself, is incredibly far fetched and near impossible. As stated below, Zuckerberg has placed himself in the position of the benevolent white savior who wants only one thing: to help the world via technology. However, even though he claims that this goal isn't selfish in nature, it's clear to see that the underlying cause for this project is, at its core, capitalist in nature.
OLPC wanted to give every child in the world a laptop, so they could learn computers, believing he would benefit the world. B
A lot of tech companies will produce things that they think the people will want, but never actually consider and take input from their consumers. They like to think that they're benefiting the world, but in reality they're just trying to gain fame and notoriety from their supposed "genius inventions and ideas".
hen Facebook started, there were already other social media platforms in use that Facebook had to compete against, but Facebook became dominant. Since then other companies have tried to compete with Facebook, with different levels of success.
I find it interesting how facebook dominated the market back in the early 2010s but has now faded into obscurity and has started to be hated by many of its users. On the app store, it currently has a 2.2 out of 5 stars, with over 1.6 million reviews.
Surveillance capitalism began when internet companies started tracking user behavior data to make their sites more personally tailored to users.
I find this concept interesting, as it allows for companies to take data from its users and use said data in very unethical ways. As stated in the later half of the paragraph, Metas ability to direct ads at the request of the advertiser seems to be faulty in regards to ethics but a decent business model.
which was widely condemned as being mean and not understanding other people’s experiences
I think in these cases, people tend make a mountain out of a molehill. If a creator tweets a general statement like this, I think that there is no need for everyone to dogpile and shame them for it. I understand if the statement was a direct callout to someone, but since it's so general I dont think that its condemnation was necessary.
public shaming is used against “normal” people who are plucked out of obscurity to be shamed by huge crowds online
With the rise of TikTok and other platforms that allow people to gain large audiences in a short period of time, I've noticed that people lose their audiences via public shaming just as quickly. People become detectives to make sure their faves haven't done anything problematic, and if they have, they'll spread it around to inform everyone else. This vicious cycle results in the public shaming of a normal person who happens to have a platform.
The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is an American white-supremacist terrorist organization known to harass and murder Black people and others. Members of the KKK keep their identity secret by wearing white robes and hoods over their faces.
I think in this case, doxxing can be justified. The members of KKK commit, in both past and present, horrific acts against black people. Doxxing is the lesser of two evils in this scenario, as it would ideally expose the whites behind the hoods and prevent the brutalization of people of color.
Doxing: Publicly posting identifying information about someone (e.g., full name, address, phone number, etc.).
I've noticed that doxxing is a lot more common now, and some people don't even consider it a threat. I think that most people, who aren't on the receiving end, think of it as a joke rather than a serious threat.
y, we almost always find that we can split the users into a small group of power users who do the majority of the contributions, and a very large group of lurkers who contribute little to nothing.
I think that this is usually the case when it comes to almost every social media platform. Most people consume content, rather than create it, which can honestly be more harmful than the opposite.
When a crowd is providing financial contributions, that is called crowdfunding
I find it interesting how the original intention behind gofundme was to create a platform for charities to raise money, but has slowly shifted over to personal use. This use is typically in the realm of medical funding or donations to underprivileged people.
They have to get through many posts during their time, and given the nature of the content (e.g., hateful content, child porn, videos of murder, etc.),
I've noticed that a lot of people, especially on sites like youtube, will flag incredibly long videos as inappropriate which forces the moderators to sit through the whole thing just to find out that it was a "prank". Though amusing for the people on the other side of the screen, it takes away from the moderators time that could be spent removing actually harmful content.
So platforms might put limits on language (e.g., racial slurs), violence, sex, and nudity. Sometimes different users or advertisers have different opinions on what should be allowed or not.
I find it interesting how people will go to such great lengths to get around content blocking, especially when it comes to sex and nudity. Regarding the tumblr porn ban, there is still a high content of porn bots and livestreams even with the current moderation.
Incels objectify women and sex, claiming they have a right to have women want to have sex with them. Incels believe they are being unfairly denied this sex because of the few sexually attractive men (”Chads”), and because feminism told women they could refuse to have sex.
I've noticed that Incels don't just objectify women and desire sex, but demand that women be completely subservient to them. This mindset was, and still is, incredibly prevalent within different niches of the internet. However, its slowly spread from just the small niches into other forms of content, such as the "red-pilled manosphere" podcasts.
Social media can make trauma dumping easier.
I've noticed that a lot of trauma dumping on the internet is masked as jokes and general comedy. A lot of trends on TikTok capitalize on people's trauma from relationships, both romantic and familial. I've opened comment sections on videos of people posting with their dads to find comments of "man i wish i had a dad" or "couldn't be me".
While many people on social media post in hopes of getting attention and even going viral, those who have actually had their content go viral often have mixed feelings about it. F
I've noticed that receiving constant attention from the internet can drain the creativity out of a person's content. Many artists go viral in a specific niche, resulting in consumers demanding specific drawings and threatening to stop supporting the creator if they don't comply.
et’s now turn to social media and look at how evolution happens there.
I find it interesting how our concept of "vitality" has changed over time. Back in the early days of the internet, one million views on a YouTube video meant it was literally the most popular video at the time. Now, one million views seem commonplace, especially regarding videos made by bigger creators.
Knowing that there is a recommendation algorithm, users of the platform will try to do things to make the recommendation algorithm amplify their content. This is particularly important for people who make their money from social media content.
Even though recommendation algorithms usually promote content that users want to see, it often promotes content boosted by content creators. For example, twitter now promotes the comments of verified members under posts rather than the ones with the most likes or retweets. This incentives people to buy verification from twitter to get their accounts promoted.
They don’t want another social media site copying their hard work in coming up with an algorithm They don’t want users to see the algorithm and then be able to complain about specific details They don’t want malicious users to see the algorithm and figure out how to best make their content go viral
I find it interesting how sites keep their algorithms private, even though "beating" them (i.e promoting content/making things to viral) can be deciphered by users quickly. In regard to TikTok, most people understand how to boost content quickly and "win" against the confusing algorithm.
Additionally, attempts to make disabled people (or people with other differences) act “normal” can be abusive, such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy for autistic people, or “Gay Conversion Therapy.”
I believe that a lot of these attempts to make someone "act normal" come from a place of hatred for the group of people they want to change. A lot of kids are sent to conversion camps by their parents, and organizations like Autism Speaks are actively against the people they advertise help to.
Which abilities are expected of people, and therefore what things are considered disabilities, are socially defined. Different societies and groups of people make different assumptions about what people can do, and so what is considered a disability in one group, might just be “normal” in another.
I find it interesting how disabilities can be socially defined. I had never considered how the functioning of our society could impact the perimeters of a disability.
Besides hacking, there are other forms of privacy violations, such as:
Considering how much time we spend online, I'd assume that there would be stricter laws regarding privacy. However, reading this has made me realize how many loopholes companies and different platforms will create and go through to collect the information of the people using (or not using) their products.
Hacking attempts can be made on individuals, whether because the individual is the goal target, or because the individual works at a company which is the target. Hackers can target individuals with attacks like:
I've always wondered what Hackers get from exposing or stealing someone's data. How does it benefit them if the information isn't to someone's bank account or social security number?
But targeting advertising can be used in less ethical ways, such as targeting gambling ads at children, or at users who are addicted to gambling, or the 2016 Trump campaign ‘target[ing] 3.5m black Americans to deter them from voting’
I honestly think that the less ethical ways of advertising are the norm, as they tend to draw interest/gain customers (such as targeted ads to people with addiction). Unfortunately, I really doubt that ads are based purely on coincidence since our data has been circulated so many times.
For example, social media data about who you are friends with might be used to infer your sexual orientation. Social media data might also be used to infer people’s: Race Political leanings Interests Susceptibility to financial scams Being prone to addiction (e.g., gambling)
I find it interesting how our data is so easily accessible to people with the right means. It's strange and slightly horrifying how many things can be deduced from our data and sold to companies for a quick profit.
Do not argue with trolls - it means that they win
As Film Crit Hulk says, ignoring trolls will not work if you want them to stop. Because they feed off reactions, they won't stop pushing their target till they get some kind of response. Because trolls have no regard for their own image, the best way to deal with them is to contact a mod to get them banned.
To go in a different direction for our last example, let’s look at an example of trolling as a form of protest.
Trolling is such a versatile way of communicating across the internet. On one hand, people can participate in cruel and unusual ways of tormenting others or engage in it to support a cause.
Dr. McLaughlin pretended to be a person (@Sciencing_Bi) who didn’t exist.
Unfortunately, this situation is a lot more common than people think. Back in 2016, there was a Tumblr user who claimed to be an HIV-positive Chinese-Pakistani trafficking survivor and gained thousands of followers. In reality, she was a white college student in the US. She scammed hundreds of dollars out of people under the guise of medical assistance, doxxed, and suicide-bated several people during her time active.
Many users were upset that what they had been watching wasn’t authentic. That is, users believed the channel was presenting itself as true events about a real girl, and it wasn’t that at all. Though, even after users discovered it was fictional, the channel continued to grow in popularity.
It is interesting how people often feel entitled to complete transparency on the internet, especially regarding the details of people's personal lives. I think our exposure to constant information has led to people assuming they're being lied to if someone doesn't immediately disclose information.
“free-speech-friendly” image-sharing bulletin board, which he called 8chan.
It’s both surprising and not that 4Chan evolved from a platform based around comedy. I had some basic knowledge of the site before reading this chapter, but I never knew how it was created or who created it. I also find it horrifying that the free speech wasnt “free” enough for some people, leading to the creation 8Chan–which in itself is an absolutely vile site.
In 1997, the internet service provider AOL introduced a chat system called AOL Instant Messenger (AIM)
I find it interesting how AIM has been such a critical point in classic “text-speech” but people tend to overlook it. Since it was the first variation of texting, AIM was the breeding ground for most of the acronyms we know today. Along with that, its inclusion of away messages and activation statuses really put it ahead of its time.
charity tourism’. On
I’ve found that there's a large sub-sect of people on the internet who travel to underprivileged locations for the sole purpose of stroking their own egos. By providing mediocre assistance and posting it on social media, they fule their savior complex and advertise themselves as a “do-gooder”. In reality, they don't care about the communities they've visited and often do more harm than good.
So all data that you might find is a simplification. There are many seemingly simple questions that in some situations or for some people, have no simple answers, questions like:
I find it interesting how simplifying data always results in some form of bias towards a certain factor. As mentioned in the examples, there are many extraneous factors that influence answers to questions that cannot be captured by computers. Though the simplification of data can speed up the code, we lose the complexity of the data in the process.
This allows the protesters to remain anonymous and the donkey unaware of it’s political mission.
I’ve noticed that people often consider bots as their own entity with their own beliefs and ideas, rather than an extension of the person that created it. In reference to the comparison of bots and the protesting donkey, bots are simply a carrier for those who create them. They act as a blank space for the creator to project ideas and the like out onto social media without them being tied to it. Bots are not innately good or evil, but rather a projection of the creator, similarly to the protesting donkey
Antagonistic bots can also be used as a form of political pushback that may be ethically justifiable.
I find it interesting how the category of “Antagonistic Bots” can be separated into two sub-categories: those that are ethically permissible and those that are not. I noticed that the bots that are considered “ethically permissible” are often upfront about their bot status and usually work to benefit a greater cause, such as the example of the gender pay bot. I also found that the more classically known “antagonistic bots” are far less revealing about their bot status, which I noticed was an interesting distinction between the two.
So, for example, a war is enacted through the mediums of speech (e.g., threats, treaties, battle plans), coordinated movements, clothing (uniforms), and, of course, the mediums of weapons and violence.
I find it interesting how the author considers war to be a subsect of social media. It’s clearly a social occurrence, both on and off the battlefield, but I never considered the “media” aspect that the author pointed out. The idea that war, something so classically damaging and violent, falls under a category that most associate with peacetimes is an interesting concept that I’d have never thought of before this
Locke: Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property
Within “The Two Treatises of Civil Government”, John Locke defended the concept of natural rights against the divine rights of kings. His popularization of natural rights and the creation of the phrase “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” eventually inspired the American revolutionaries into the creation of a government devoid of a monarch. Similarly to the ideas of the Americans, Locke’s prior statement regarding life, liberty, and property advocates for a government that provides and protects these natural rights for its citizens.