In this article, author talks about an experiment happened in the Facebook. A researcher in Facebook adjusted and investigated the posts people received and posted. He found that if people received posts with bad emotions. They would also send some posts with bad emotions. For this investigation, I would like to say it did not sent consent to the users. I have studied psychology at high school, and in psychology, researchers need to inform consent to the people they research. So, maybe this is the reason why this research is controversial。

I have experienced this before. I used up my cellular data before because of watching TikTok. So, I decided to delete it, and turn to watch TikTok on iPad which is connected internet at my dorm. Then, I don't use TikTok at outside of dorm. This do enhance my ability of studying. However, I would miss some of message from my friends. So, I change my plan. I choose to see all of the message before I sleep. This experience of mine is very related to the content in the book. In conclusion, this consequence seems like I win myself from get addicted into TikTok, but actually I win the algorithm designed to enlarge our time of using TikTok.

This reference talks about a kind of video in Facebook. An author was taking many of disgusting video of cooking on his account, and those video spread like virus, since people felt angry when they saw those video. Then, Facebook would post to more and more people, because someone felt angry after they saw(Anrgy weigh more in the Facebook)

For most of people including me would not get to know the history of a meme while they are using it. And this may hurt others. For example, a YouTuber burned with a disease which causes her could not grow weight, and a person made a meme about her in 2016. After this, this YouTuber sent a post about letting people get to know the story behind the meme they used. Therefore, people should try to know the story behind the meme while they are going to use it.

This reference talks about the recommendation formula of Facebook gives emoji of Rage 5 times of weight than emoji of Likes. In my opinion, the mechanism gives awards to people who troll. People usually give Rage emoji after they watched trolling videos. If every platform uses this mechanism, that may cause more and more people turn to do trolling behavior, since most of platform would give award to people who make the popular videos.

I would like to share my personal experiences of this. I usually watch TikTok when I am cleaning my face. So, I change the settings which means I will not skip any of the video the TikTok recommend to me. After this, TikTok thinks I like those video. So, I receive lots of video I really do not interested in.

This is a same kind of example with the automatic soap dispenser in 10.3. The reason of those kind of mistakes is because of the author. For example, the author of automatic soap dispenser may be white. So, he used his own hand to test and until he sell this machine to the public he did not find the mistake, since he is white. There may be the same in the situation of j22.

After reading this, I was aware that I am also situational disabilities before. One day I did not bring my earphones, when I was taking metro. Then, I cannot hear anything from my phone. So, I use subtitles in this day. However, subtitles were designed to benefit disabled people. And now everyone benefits from this. We could see subtitles benefits everyone instead of just disabled people.

This article tells about the all of passwords of users could be seen by every employee. However, it should not be like this. The password of users should be secret and every employee could not see it. For me, I used same password in every platform. So, this makes me scared.

For social media companies, the secrets means money to them. From chapter 8, we know that social media companies earn money from ad. So, depending on this, if most of people post their secrets on social media. That would make more people to watch this social media. Second, protecting secret of user would take so much time and money. So, according to the textbook, companies would not care about this until the bad thing happens.

This example is a common mistakes in the questionnaire, which is spurious correlations. People would receive the content they would like to watch in the Internet. So, for the questionnaire in the internet, it is possible that there is only one kind of people receive this questionnaire. And they all have same type of answer. Then, the questionnaire is invalid. So, for questionnaire in internet, they should consider that should they use data mining during the questionnaire.

First, companies should not post immorally. For example, they should post addicted content to people who are easier to addict, like the example mentioned in the textbook about gambling. Then, posting ad. depends on interest are easier to be accept. For example, me, I have received an ad. about football, since I like football. I was happy with that.

First, I agree with author's perspective. He thinks troller is like stalker, if people do not feed on them. They would do more. So, platform should ban their accounts. However, I have the question that how does the platform know who should be banned. For example, the k-pop example in the textbook. I think those kind of trolling should not be banned. Therefore, it is reasonable to ban the account of trolling, but platform should clear who should they ban and who should not.

In my opinion, it is not the best way to deal with trolling. Using bullying as an example. Trolling is as same as bullying. In situations of bullying, if you do not fight back, they would bully you again and again. It is same in the trolling. People need to use reasonable idea to say against the trolling. For example, I saw a person using lots of professional knowledge to say against the troller, and he literally could not say anything.

In this article, author claims that requiring users to use their real name cannot reduce the bad behavior in the community. However, the result reflects that it is no matter with using the real name. It is related to whether there is an exact rule or not. This shows using real name is a very efficient rule to manage a community.

So, based of Context Collapse, many of people I meet may not real. That means different people may behave differently while they are facing different people. However, in social media it is completely different situation. Using the example in the article, a child may meet his parents when he has a meal with his friends, and he does not how to behave. In the social media, it means, different people with different background may misunderstand or don't understand what's other people posted.

No stop of users action may cause problems. If there is a small stop between posts and posts, it would be better to let users to think about the content of this video.

In the article, author concludes many kinds of fiction, such as emotional friction and interaction friction. Then, author gives an example to us. It talks about users would mislead by the sign of credit card, and use it as the bottom of conforming to pay. However, in my opinion, this example did not show how bad the users' ability to operate the website. It may shows the interface of website gives wrong hint. It is related to affordances. Author of the website should check the element of website, and change the elements that looks like it could be click.

In this example, we learned the number of objects could not judge it is fair or not. However, I think for different objects we should use different standard. For example, for foods, we should use weight to allocate, rather than quantity. In situation of social media, the reason why users‘ likes could not be simple. They may misclick, or just supporting their friends. If platforms want to determine what they like and recommend videos to them, those data could not be understand in this simple way(they need consider the situation I said before)

In this situation, one has a long last name, so he cannot type it in the system. So, he asked a question in community. Some people answered this question. For example, a person said that he can removing the last letter of his name. However, in my opinion, while a rule is not reasonable, costumer should not take this responsibility. The reason why creator of the website did not notice this question is that the user adjust the rule which is not fair. Therefore, the creator should consider names' difference, and fix the problem of system.

After reading the store of him, I know the internet is so fake. There are so many ways people could manipulate the content in internet. For example, using bots to produce a fake conversation to show the video is popular, and using bots to increase the number of likes. However, the point is we need to learn to distinguish the content in the internet rather than just judge it depends on number of likes or comments.

In my opinion, this problem may caused by the programmer. They may just coding a bot which could learn what people said in the internet. However, they should let bots learn and determine it is good or bad, then there won't be this situation.

1. For Taoism, I would like to add more information. In the textbook, it said:" Trying to force something to happen will likely backfire." It's right, but we should know more. In Taoism, spring means growing up, summer means prosperity, autumn means recession, and winter means taking a break. Therefore, the further comprehension of Taoism is understand and control. For example, ancient Chinese water wheel reflects that they can use the natural flow of water to help them cultivate, rather than forcing nature.

In my opinion, in the future, Internet can be the real life. For now, some of the rule of the internet are vague. It means even if someone did impolite or criminal behavior, they would not be punished a lot. So, that makes bad people have low cost to do a crime. However, there would be more and more comprehensive law in the internet. Then, I think internet can be a real life.