The article covers the life and influence of Mahatma Gandhi, a man who is known for liberating India from British control. He was known for pursuing satya (truth) and founded Satyagraha that focused on holding onto truth through peaceful and non-violent means. Personally, I believe that having a figure like Gandhi that can liberate social media from big companies that focus on profits and PR could help the environment of the internet as it would not only help users feel at ease using websites and social media, but it would also allow the preservation of certain pieces of internet history and knowledge.

In general, a social media site that is governed by users rather than shareholders would shift their focuses, mainly going from making the most profits to focusing on the user-experience of the website. Users could establish a poll system that allows the general user-base to vote for any new choices that could help improve user-experience. Non-users would likely not have much of a say when it comes to harmless decisions that improve the site, but if users from the site were to make harmful decisions then it's not out-of-the-question for non-users to speak their mind/do something. The website itself would definitely have qualities not thought of before that make it easier for new users to navigate through the site. On top of that, there would be better UI and better quality of life for older users.

The wiki page gives a detailed background on the Nuremberg Trials that were held after World War 2. It describes how the trials acted not only to prosecute and convict living members involved with Nazi Germany's atrocities, but to also prove to the world that the atrocities committed are inarguably wrong from all perspectives. These trials reflect today's attitude towards certain groups acting in ways that are considered wrong on different accounts; people online want to see these groups held accountable for their actions, so they use the internet and social media to publicize it to others online as a call to action.

There are 3 different examples of how and when a user wanting to retract a tweet. A user who once believed in a certain belief (mainly a belief centered around hate) but then later grew out of that belief would likely want to retract what they have tweeted involving such beliefs; a person who once believed how their race, gender, etc. is the superior class would use the retract feature when they realize what they have said was wrong to properly apologize for their past actions. On a smaller scale, someone who said something in the past that was out-of-line would also want to use the retract feature; that someone could've either been ignorant at the time of the tweet and would later learn and apologize for the harm that their words caused, or they could've known the harm of their words at the time of the tweet and then later would want to apologize for acting in such a way. A last example of a user using the retract feature could include them mentioning misinformation, and then later using such feature to correct the information they mentioned.

The twitter post shows how certain kinds of harassment can be a positive to certain communities. In the post, the user shows a person that they exposed for attending a white supremacist gathering, while also showing that the evidence they've submitted to the person's employer was received and that the person is now fired from their job. This goes to show that supporting and being a part of a bad group would not go unnoticed on the internet, and that harassment for cases like this are justifiable.

I think crowd harassment is justified when an organization or cult plans to harm or negatively affect a certain society(s); this mainly includes but is not limited to ethnicities, cultures, sexes, and minorities. People who are a part of or support such organizations should be held accountable and punished for tolerating hate towards others. Of course, crowd harassment should only be justifiable when the kind of harassment being done does not involve physical harm towards the organizations that spread hate; if physical harm were to occur, the crowd trying to "bring justice" towards a hate group would be no better than the people they are trying to condemn.

GoFundMe is a crowdfunding website aimed towards giving people easy accessibility to set up a source for online donations towards a certain cause/goal. By using this website, anyone is able to set up a fundraiser for anything and easily put it out on social media through sharing a like to said fundraiser. Through either the GoFundMe website or a GoFundMe link on social media, anyone can access a variety of fundraisers and put in their own two cents into whatever cause/goal they would like to support.

I've participated in crowdsurfing on a Fandom Wiki for a game called Warframe. For context, Warframe is a game similar to Halo but more fast-paced and consisting of its own complex lore. The game still gets consistent updates to this day, updates that add to both the gameplay and lore. I've added a few of my own entries into the wiki involving the lore to help other people get a better idea of what-means-what, mainly due to how complicated and extensive the devs make it out to be.

The article highlights the issues of YouTube's copyright claim system. Youtube's copyright system is an automated system that has shown to have many flaws that punish YouTube channels for false claims. Those punishments end up negatively affecting the ad revenue of those channels to the point where it affects their livelihood. Thankfully, YouTube later addressed these problems with their system and later established a better system for handling copyright claims.

I first installed instagram during the Covid years. When I browsed through it for the first time, I got a bunch of news and information about the virus itself; majority of it was factual and backed up by various studies, but there were a few posts that try to claim how Covid was a conspiracy and how the vaccines had microchips in them. However, Instagram had a feature that identified false news and notified it on the post itself. Looking back on it now, I am grateful for features like what instagram has that identifies false information; without that feature, I'd likely believe everything that is posted online.

The article covers a study behind disassociation on social media. Researchers at UW did an experiment on whether or not people enter a state of disassociation when scrolling on social media and whether or not it is similar to that of reading a book. The experiment later highlighted the issue that people having a lack of self control are not the problem when it came to long hours spent on social media, rather the apps themselves do not value the time that is sacred to users and instead value maximizing the time users spend on such apps.

I dislike how algorithims are becoming more advanced and making it easier for people to consume more and more negative media. When I first got TikTok, the way their algorithm worked basically catered and served to me like my own personal buffet, but the more I scrolled the more the content got negative. It got so negative to the point where the things I used to appreciate and like no longer interested me, and yet I still consumed the negative media related to those things on the app. I'm grateful now that I had the willpower to uninstall TikTok a few months into me having it despite it being so addictive with drama and negative media.

The article tells the story of Ghyslain Raza, aka "Star Wars Kid." In short, Raza recorded a video of him pretending he's fighting in a Star Wars movie, and soon after some classmates found and posted the video online which allowed it to go viral. After the video went viral, Raza was likely subjected to bullying by other classmates and soon he had to finish school in a psyche-ward. The article's main message warns readers the negative side effects of going viral, mainly how it affects the subject of vitality.

In the future, I plan to run my own clothing brand that relates to aspects of my life. Once I get the chance to do that, I would like one of my clothing pieces to go viral by the way it looks to not only gain exposure, but to also create a community around my brand involving the sense of style my clothes have.

The article talks about the history of society's response to people with disabilities. The main point mentions how societal beliefs aimed towards certain groups are caused by the power structures present in society in a given time. It covers how disabilities were once treated as punishment by a divine figure due to moral failing, but eventually the stigma changed to be more biologically-related due to the European Enlightenment.

This part where it mentions how people with autism feel offended by the idea that their autism is a defect that needs to be cured hits pretty close to home. My grandmother runs an elementary and middle school in the Philippines that specifically aims to help out special needs children with school work that can translate into real-life scenarios. When I first visited the Philippines a couple of years ago, I volunteered to my grandmother's school and helped her with teaching math to some of the children. Through that experience of helping them, I realized that the children didn't have much difficulty taking in what was being taught, rather they applied what was taught and used their own methods of finding solutions to the math problems. From that moment, I grew to learn that certain mental "defects" were nothing more that experiencing the world through a different lens, so I get why people with autism would feel offended that their way of experiencing certain aspects of life should be cured since it is not "the right way".

The article describes how Facebook collects data of non-users. Facebook collects the data of such non-users by tracking their browser history and their contacts. For browsing history, sites that use Facebook's advertising pixel sends user data back to Facebook; people who are identified as non-users are then targeted by ads convincing them to join the platform. For contacts, people who do have Facebook accounts use the contact upload feature, to which the platform identifies the contacts of non-user and collects their available data.

Google's accuracy of my preferences were pretty hit or miss. Some ads aligned with my hobbies like clothing and music, but then there were some random ads that don't particularly align with me, like one promoting home decor. Maybe the reason Google is giving me more random ads is because it wants to experiment with me on what hobbies or interests I could potentially like. In terms of me being comfortable with Google knowing my preferences, I'd rather them give me random ads than personalized ones; I might be paranoid but I feel like people online can use that information against you, so having randomness could offer me a form of protection.

This twitter (X) post highlights two posts made on the Donald Trump twitter account. The first image shows Trump rooting for Team USA in the Rio 2016 Olympics (posted through an iPhone), while the second post shows Trump attempting to bad-mouth Hillary Clinton once he reaches to New Hampshire (posted through an Android). The post highlights an authenticity concern with posts made on Donald Trump's twitter account, and demonstrates how the tweets with coherent and collected words are posted by Trump's PR team (iPhone posts), while the ones with emotional and erratic words are the tweets actually posted by Trump (Android posts)

When it comes to corporate brands posting on social media, I believe that if their posts contain certain levels of branding towards the company, than they can be considered authentic. For example, the Wendy's Twitter account has a reputation of having out-of-the-ordinary tweets compared to their competitions' tweets who simply promote their products through keeping up with relevant trends. Instead, the person behind the Wendy's account posts whitty-humored messages that either disprove the negative beliefs mentioned by non-Wendy's fans, or bite-back at rival restaurants that try to prove that their product is better. Despite giving off the idea that an angsty teenager is posting such tweets, the Wendy's corporation is still promoting their product in a creative, yet tactless, way that both sets themselves apart from the competition and shows a form of authenticity towards consumers.

From what I can tell about this website, SocialWick allows anyone who signs up to their website to buy followers (who are likely a mix between bots and human computers) for their social media accounts. From how I see it, this website brings up the question as to whether or not certain social media celebrities gained their following authentically or through websites like SocialWick.

It is pretty scary to see how much people use bots on social media. I often check the comments on certain Instagram posts that get my attention, and more often than not they are littered with quotes that come off as A.I generated, along with accounts trying to advertise their brand that is completely unrelated to the context of the post. What concerns me the most is whether or not these bots will be commercialized and distributed towards the general public, and how long it will take before the wrong people will weaponize these bots to target innocent people on social media.

I disagree with this statement since it not only emphasizes helplessness and pessimism, but it also tolerates and allows the "wrong" to happen within society. By believing that nothing matters in the grand scheme of things, it prevents people from believing their own self-worth, all-while slowing down the action taken that can possibly solve certain issues within our society. In response to a lack of notable action, these issues can gradually get worse to a point where there actually is nothing people can do regularly. Certain small actions do matter and can make a difference in our world, but they can only work if people put in the time, effort, and patience to see change happen.

I believe that the reason these people did not have an answer Kumail Nanjiani was mainly because they were likely tunnel-visioned to that their technology can provide more good than harm. Take cars for example; cars can hypothetically be used as deadly high-speed weapons to demolish anything in their way, but the inventors of cars intended that the main function of the technology was to make long-distance travel more convenient. These people likely focused on the positives that their product could provide towards society, all while overlooking any unethical uses of them and just assumed that people would not even think twice about using them maliciously.