This was both shocking and enlightening to me. I was amazed at how Steve Krenzel remained firm against selling data that would be used to identify users, even when he faced pressure in a time when Twitter was economically struggling. Discovering how the legal team approved the request over the clear issue of privacy opened my eyes to how jumbled ethical lines can become in corporate environments. I am also worried about Krenzel's forecast that Elon Musk could do even worse things with user data, considering the influence that comes with having a platform. This article caused me to think really hard about engineers' ethical role to mold the digital world.

I have learned so much more from this ethics course than I ever imagined. I had a very general idea of ethical theories beforehand, but now I am able to identify and apply a wide range of frameworks like Confucianism, Taoism, Virtue Ethics, and even lesser-known ones like Aztec Virtue Ethics and Ubuntu. I especially appreciated how we did not simply memorize theories, but actually applied them to real-world issues, specifically in the context of social media. Through the process, I came to appreciate that ethics is not so much about finding perfect solutions, but more about asking the right questions and appreciating the complexity of each decision. Thank you, Professor, for guiding us through such a deep and enriching journey.

I find postcolonialism to be a powerful lens for understanding how colonial histories continue to shape cultural identities, knowledge systems, and power structures today. This prompts me to reflect on how deeply colonial legacies influence global dynamics and the importance of acknowledging and addressing these enduring impacts.

I think capitalism gives people the freedom to create and innovate. I notice that the system often benefits business owners more than workers, since profits mostly go to those who already hold capital. This imbalance makes me question how fair or sustainable the system is in the long term.

I was especially enlightened and engaged by their explanation of public shaming as a tool for enforcing social norms. While public shaming is sometimes morally warranted, it usually falls short on ethical grounds in terms of disproportionality and possible misinterpretation, especially when it is done online. This prompted me to reconsider the complexities of public shaming, and the necessity of ensuring that any such action is proportionate, required, and undertaken with a clear appreciation of the context and potential consequences.

I think the term cancel culture is used so much that it has lost a lot of its meaning. It can mean everything from genuine accountability to ridiculous online pile-ons. I've seen how it can sometimes actually hold power-holders accountable, and how it can be used to chastise others for misreading or minor mistakes. That's why I think discussing specifically public shaming and public criticism makes the conversation more specific and useful.

I was struck by how America's emphasis on personal freedom was shaped by centuries of religious conflict in England between Catholics and Protestants, where the power dynamic was in doubt. I appreciate how the First Amendment put into law the distinction between what society does not approve of and what precisely ought to be outlawed, like the difference between dishonesty and perjury. That makes me think more seriously about the balance between personal freedom and community protection in a healthy democracy.

I find the concept of stochastic terrorism personally quite chilling in that it highlights how influential people can instigate real-world violence without giving even order, just by using suggestive inflammatory speech. It makes me wonder about the power of words and how ambivalent but evocative rhetoric can prompt random behavior on the part of individuals already on the edge. Knowing this has made me more vigilant to the way speech, particularly from public speakers, is responsible, even when it cloaks itself under plausible deniability.

This section helped me rethink how social media collaboration can resemble problem-solving. In each case—whether it's identifying a mystery couple or locating a missing hiker—users collectively act like detectives, pooling skills and digital resources to “solve” something. While the outcomes can be heartwarming or even life-saving, like the hiker rescue, there’s also a blurred line between helpfulness and invasive doxxing. The problem-solving frame makes it easy to overlook the ethical implications, especially when personal privacy is at stake. Just because a goal is positive doesn’t always mean the process is harmless.

Hollan and Stornetta’s idea of designing communication systems that go beyond simply replicating in-person interaction really resonates in the context of mental health and social media. Instead of just mimicking real-life presence, platforms should intentionally enhance emotional connection and accessibility—especially for users who struggle with in-person expression. Their argument pushes us to ask: how can digital spaces offer better support, not just simulate being there? This feels especially important when thinking about designing for neurodiverse users or those experiencing loneliness online.

I used to believe "Don't read the comments" was simply sound advice for remaining sane on the internet, but after reading Anil Dash's article, I see how that attitude excuses platforms. I now understand how making that joke normal allows abuse to be accepted rather than confronted, and allows real online connections to be lost. For example, I remember when YouTuber Lindsay Ellis was bullied off of Twitter after being misunderstood for a review of a film, told "don't read the comments," but the real issue was that the platform didn't do enough to stand up for her.

I had to make decisions based on both pressure and responsibility in deciding whether or not to moderate content because I knew my decision would curtail someone's ability to communicate. Occasionally, it was difficult for me to differentiate between free speech and offending material, especially if the context was ambiguous. I also realized the importance of human sympathy and guidelines so as to render just decisions.

I was amazed at how chain letters in the 1900s mimicked structured systems like pyramid schemes and applied superstition to compel action. I hadn't expected to see such blatant emotional manipulation such as promising good luck or threatening catastrophe used so indiscriminately in hand-written mail. It made me question how much of what we do on the web today carries on those same manipulative tendencies, but faster and more flashy.

I was amazed to find that the saying from Oliver Tearle is most commonly falsely attributed to a person like Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, when it likely had a much earlier origin. This made me reflect on why misinformation will travel far and fast while accurate information cannot hope to catch up. It made me remember to be more careful with the sources I think and cross-check facts and quotes before I share.

I've read what this section is discussing. The moment I start enjoying or interacting with a specific kind of content, the algorithm instantly gets me into that bubble. It starts off feeling warm, especially in supportive or interest-based groups, but I've also seen how easily you can get out of viewing other opinions. Reading this helped me realize how important it is to actively seek out diverse opinions so you don't find yourself in an echo chamber.

I found Elon Musk's comment both ironic and penetrating. I have definitely noticed the more I am exposed to material I don't enjoy, the more I will see. It made me wonder how bad exchanges drive algorithms into action and into our virtual arenas. I feel it's an appeal to myself to be more intentional with what I give my attention to in the digital space.

When I think about it, I realize that social media sites and devices make a lot of assumptions about users that aren't always true. They assume everyone has internet access all the time and can just navigate through apps. I also notice that sites presume that individuals will behave reasonably and volunteer details of their lives willingly, even if not everyone necessarily feels safe or comfortable doing this. It bothers me that the majority of sites are designed in large part for English speakers and quite often fail to account for differing cultural expectations.

I feel this chapter's description of ADHD clear and insightful, especially the manner that highlights the heterogeneity of symptoms and presentations. I appreciate that it addresses both the challenges and abilities of people with ADHD that it appears hopeful and the inclusion of ongoing research and evolving knowledge shows that treatment and assistance continue to evolve.

I was shocked at how much control people have over their own online identity with regard to Facebook. That there is the potential for my information to end up on their servers because someone who knows me has uploaded their list of contacts is a violation I never agreed to. What's more frustrating is the lack of transparency and that even when Facebook claims to be deleting data, it's most likely collecting new data at the same time. It makes me question how much control we truly have on the internet and how it reminds me that having the ability to opt-out of a platform is not always about opting-out of its reach.

I think that deeply personal information such as one's mental state, financial hardship, or relationship problems could be used for targeted advertising or manipulation, which would be invasive and wrong. Even if businesses have no intention of using it negatively, keeping that type of sensitive information on file heightens the potential for catastrophic damage in case of a data breach. I believe there should be some off-limits boundaries, especially when those providing the data have no idea how it is going to be utilized. That data can be mined does not mean that it should.

I think the best way to handle trolling should be dependent on the context, but in general, not playing along is the most effective response. From my perspective, trolls frequently need a reaction or attention, so staying calm and not giving them an emotional response can take away their power. When it's abusive or repetitive, I think reporting, blocking, or using moderation tools is the way to go over trying to reason with them. I also think setting respectful conversation as the norm in areas you're building diminishes trolling in the first place, and prefer to spend my energy on people who are there to have a real conversation.

When I read the FBI-King letter, I was disturbed to my core. I couldn't help but wonder how much manipulation and malice were used to try to destroy someone who was fighting for justice. It reminded me of how power, when not in check, can become horribly corrupt. I felt anger and sadness that this was from a government agency. It made me remember why questioning authority and defending the voice of justice is so vital.

This makes me reflective that internet are lacking the series of system to verify the authenticity of any information online. A rumor can really turn into harm if everyone believes in it. Lots of people are willing to be inauthentic in order to gain clout on internet, even same for the co-founder of a NGO.

This sociological term brings up the emotional anf facial requirement to workers in service industry when facing with the customer in order to deliver a comfortable service. This might be inauthentic because workers are not allowed to bring up negative vibes, languages, and energy to the customer even if that's what their actual feeling. This reminds me of the news that went viral in Shanghai last year that a barista from manner coffee threw coffee powder to a customer's face and yelled at her since the staff cannot tolerate customer's repetitive, non-negotiable, and unreasonable complaint in busy hours. That showcases the fact the competitiveness of current service industry in Asia is driving the trained staff uncontrollably manage their feelings even when they are emotional labor.

I would say antisocial posts and dark humors pervade across the internet. Personally, the reason why contents are created is because dark humor is the easiest blog content that can make audience laugh and like about it so that lots of content creators would treat it as a cheat sheet as their post when they are stuck for fresh ideas. Users and authors might not possess intentional means to be actual racists over the content, but if antisocial posts became popular, lots of people will overlook and got numb for the fact that dark humor is actually a serious stuff in reality and lots of people fail to separate themselves in reality from internet. My roommate is an example, always making fun of stereotypes of a group as a joke becomes a habit for himself but not for people in his surroundings.

From my perspectives, Aza is the steppingstone of the evolutionary history of the social media platform. His technical design brings convenience and dependence to users to stick on receiving multiple scattered information quickly in a long duration, making us to be more addicative to internet and fall into the virtual world. It offers possibilities and exposure to content creators but on the humanity say it constrains people being actively thinking since they do not need to process their brain activity when scrolling the phone.

What impressed me about this passage was how it reformulates the idea of ethical decision-making as a type of mathematics. I had not previously thought of morality being approached like a math problem, where you are attempting to foresee and quantify all the potential happiness or wellbeing that could arise from different actions. I also liked how the passage clarified that "utility" here does not merely mean usefulness, but a synthesis of happiness and wellbeing. That helped me better visualize utilitarianism as a practical approach to ethics. It led me to think about how often we inadvertently do utility calculus in everyday choices.

I found it interesting how Elon Musk's skepticism about Twitter's claim that spam bots account for fewer than 5% of users created major tension in his bid to take over the company. I understand Musk's concern, since artificially padded user numbers by bots could have a dramatic impact on the platform's true value and advertising potential. This piece made me realize how vital transparency and honest data reporting are in billion dollar tech transactions.

I am surprised and astonished by the intelligence of protestors of using bots to bypass the restrictive law. From this perspective, the creation of bots adds its meaning of existence: to help people voice out their political and social desire with less concerns and form a democratic world with freedom of speech. This one is definitely my favorite.

The exposion of the disconcerting truth about how App Store rankings can be manipulated so easily by orchestrated, fake means made me reflective on how competitive the job market is in China that forced labors and companies to create a malicius cycle. It not only erodes faith in digital media but also lays bare the use of exploited, low-income workers for the benefit of those who want artificial prominence.

Growing up under confucianism, I am heavily cultivated and influenced by Confucius. My mom is the descendant of Confucius, and I spent my primary and elementry education time in Confucius school and frequently visited the residence of Confucius. In my fast-paced, modern day, Confucianism informs me of the importance of grounding, responsibility, and leadership by example. It challenges me not only to seek my own success, but also attempt to be a man of integrity who makes my own world a good place.

Tech workers have a responsibility to consider the ethical dimensions of what they develop since technology impacts society on deep levels. The people Kumail talked to likely were not aware because ethical thinking is not typically included in the high-speed, innovation-focused culture of tech. Most learn to repair technical problems, not ethical ones, so they are blindsided when the bigger questions arise.