I think that one of the most subtle yet impactful decisions is questioning why certain data is collected- what seems like an innocuous field could lead to privacy risks, misuse, or unintended bias. These small choices compound into larger systemic effects, which is why fostering the ability to think critically and stand firm on ethical principles can shape the future of technology in ways that truly serve humanity.

Beyond personal use, social media is a battleground for influence. Brands, political entities, and activist groups use sophisticated strategies like micro-targeting, sending hyper-specific content to just the right audience to shape opinions or behaviour. It's also a psychological playground where everything from colours to notifications is designed to capture your attention. For instance, the infinite scroll feature is modelled on the principles of slot machines, keeping you engaged with the promise of unpredictable rewards.

The comparison between Zuckerberg's control over Internet access and colonialism is both fascinating and unsettling because it highlights the immense power imbalance at play. In a sense, Zuckerberg and Meta are exercising a form of digital imperialism. Where, rather than the traditional colonial model of military conquest or territorial control, this modern form of domination revolves around data and access.

In some cases, tech companies extract data, resources, or labor from poorer countries without sharing the full benefits of these activities. For example, the production of tech hardware in factories across the global South, or the collection of personal data from users in countries with limited data protection laws, can be seen as a form of exploitation reminiscent of colonial resource extraction.

The idea that when women enter a profession, it becomes devalued, is not just unfair. It is deeply rooted in systemic gender biases that have existed for centuries. This dynamic, which Amy Nguyen points out, is a stark reflection of how society often fails to acknowledge the value and legitimacy of women's contributions, particularly in fields that have historically been male-dominated. The suggestion that programming, or any field, becomes less "respectable" simply because women are participating in it, speaks to a disturbing pattern of gender-based devaluation.

The concept of the network effect is fascinating to me because it creates a powerful feedback loop that can make or break a platform. For companies like Meta, this effect is both their greatest advantage and a high-stakes challenge. The more people who join Meta's platforms, the more valuable and engaging those platforms become due to increased content, interactions, and opportunities for social connections

What I find fascinating is how these questions push us to reflect on human nature and our capacity for growth, justice, and mercy. Is reconciliation about the person who caused harm, or is it about the person who was harmed finding peace? The idea of a "point of no return" might exist for some, but others might see every wound as holding at least a small possibility for repair, even if it takes generations to heal. This tension between the impossibility and the hope of reconciliation is what makes it such a profound and challenging process.

My view is that Public shaming may be morally permissible when it forms a mode of accountability, not possible by any other means, when there is harm caused in such a manner that the offending individual or entity holds much power or influence. For example, public shaming can be justified when it does something like expose systemic abuses, such as corporate exploitation or political corruption, especially in the context where traditional channels of accountability-like courts or regulatory bodies-are unreachable, ineffective, or compromised.

I found it interesting how the campaign also exposed systemic issues in how platforms handle harassment, demonstrating the inadequacy of reactive moderation systems in the face of collective and sustained online abuse. Gamergate wasn't just about gaming; it was a cultural flashpoint that highlighted the broader struggles over representation, equity, and the evolution of digital communities.

Sometimes, when harassment emerges from a collective of seemingly unconnected people, individuals feel less accountable for their actions because they perceive themselves as just one small part of a larger group. This makes it difficult to address the harm effectively through individual-focused frameworks like reporting or moderation systems that target single users.

Lurkers are often critical to the sustainability of crowdsourcing systems. Although they may not contribute directly, they still play an important role by observing and absorbing information. This is especially true in knowledge-sharing platforms like Wikipedia, where lurkers may read and learn from contributions before deciding to engage themselves.

Crowdsourcing on social media can be a powerful tool but it also has a dark side, especially when used for harassment or public shaming. Regarding the Justine Sacco case, once Sacco landed and turned her phone on, she was bombarded with messages and notifications. Social media users were waiting for her arrival, and some even took photos of her at the airport as she walked off the plane. This moment, once she was fully exposed to the scale of the outrage, became part of the public spectacle, amplifying the shaming.

Moderators often face moral dilemmas when deciding whether to remove or allow content. For instance, they may struggle with the idea of preserving free speech while also ensuring the platform remains a safe space for users. Deciding what constitutes harmful content, versus something that might be considered offensive but is still within the boundaries of free expression, is a complex task that requires careful judgment.

When individuals or volunteer moderators are left to set and enforce their own rules, it can lead to inconsistent moderation practices. What one moderator finds acceptable, another might find unacceptable, leading to confusion and frustration for users. Volunteers may also have personal biases, which can result in uneven or unfair treatment of members, especially if certain groups or opinions are favoured over others. This can create an environment of inequality or discrimination.

On one hand, these platforms give a voice to alternative and often marginalised perspectives, creating subcultures that might otherwise be silenced or ignored. On the other hand, they have also served as breeding grounds for harmful content, wherein some sections of the same communities turn towards extremism or actions that are harmful in the real world.

I find it interesting that the choices the platforms make in designing these moderation tools impact not only the tone of the discussions but also the kind of communities that will thrive. For example, on platforms that grant more powers to individual users, discussions are more civil because users filter out harassment or negativity. With less moderation, open, and unfiltered speech might permit many comments that are damaging or misleading.

I have never actually heard of this term before but the concept of doom scrolling can have a huge impact on one's mental health. It can feel deceptively productive, as if we’re staying informed or preparing ourselves by absorbing more information. In reality, though, it often leads to feelings of helplessness and exhaustion, as there’s only so much one person can process.

Although this is a prime example of how artificial intelligence can be used to support mental health, critics argue that users might not realise their posts are being analysed for mental health signals, and some question the transparency of Facebook’s data collection practices. Additionally, concerns exist about false positives or unintended consequences of intervention- such as emergency services showing up unexpectedly at a user’s home based on algorithmic analysis.

In fiction, poetry, or a song, the artists seldom provide a long list of all of those from whom they drew inspiration. Art can evoke emotions and ideas without always being upfront or clear about where the idea originally comes from. The line between influence and plagiarism is often thin. Although many creative works organically emerge from preexisting ideas or styles, disputes arise when the lines of "inspiration" and "originality" are not well demarcated.

I find it interesting how sometimes, heartfelt or sincere content made at times gets misconstrued for satire and even for meme purposes. A creator might have shared a very personal story or statement to inspire or educate, but it ends up becoming humorous content for others, or sometimes parodied. This misinterpretation either helps the creators by increasing their reach or, on other occasions, may dilute their message or even invite negative attention.

One fascinating thing is the "engagement bait" strategy, where users create content for the specific purpose of eliciting a reaction. For example, posts that beg people to "like," "share," or "comment" on their post are legion, since all of these actions signal to the algorithm that this is engaging content that deserves more visibility. Similarly, some users make a conscious decision to use trending keywords, hashtags, or even to adopt a content style similar to other popular posts as a way to manufacture viral characteristics rather than create authentic or original content.

I find it interesting that one of the more subtle issues of recommendation algorithms is the fact that they create "filter bubbles" through the constant suggestion of similar content, reinforcing the very views already held by a user. In fact, this decreases the likelihood of exposure to diverse ideas and further polarizes individuals by showing them only what agrees with their beliefs. As this process repeats over time, it feeds into the echo chamber effect, in which misinformation or one-sided perspectives are amplified with the intention of driving public opinion and social behavior in ways not intended.

Masking can also be an act of agency, giving people a sense of control about how they are perceived and enabling them to determine if and when this aspect of identity is revealed. On a social level, masking can be one way to avoid intrusive questions or unwanted sympathy, allowing them to be seen and valued for their personality and their contributions rather than through the lens of a diagnosis.

I think that it is essential that inclusivity is fostered not just in the outcomes of the design, but the design process itself. It is vital that we consider whose voices are centred and whose lived experiences shape the design. When we consider designing with-and not just for-users and include actively marginalized and impacted communities, we actually build systems and products that reflect diversified needs and values.

I think that the concept of 'shadow profiles' presents a significant challenge to privacy regulations and the ability to monitor whether data on media is kept as secure as possible. It may also in some ways be categorised as a result of misinformation. For example, a user may decline services on a media keeping in mind that they don't want to be a part of the company's data collecting practices however their data is still gathered in the system which can be deemed unethical.

I have come across multiple research papers regarding de-identification of personal information and what is so interesting as well as a bit concerning is the idea that any individual can be identified by only 3 pieces of information including zip code, birthday and gender. This discovery did lead to a change in policies regarding privacy research and regulations on various media; however this leads me to think that as privacy protections evolve, so will the methods to breach them.

I think data poisoning can have severe consequences which are often overlooked including the idea that misleading information and drastically reduced accuracy can lead to big companies or brands especially on social media making big decisions leading to losses and failures.

I find it fascinating that data mining specifically regarding social media data can be used to determine public opinion by obtaining emotions, ideas and motives behind posts. In which case this application of data mining can be applied to the social media aspect of brands when they want to gauge their audience's interests.

Trolling can pose some benefits in some ways including if it is used against users who promote hate speech or cyber bullying online. Not only does it stand up against those who misuse the internet with malicious intent, it can also be funny fostering community and camaraderie.

What I find interesting is the evolution of trolling on the internet from something which is playful and a mischievous activity to malicious and harmful in many ways. This is to do with the change in the intention of the people who troll. Back in the day I believe that the intention was to amuse themselves or confuse people on the internet rather than to harm or harass.

What I find intriguing is the impact of parasocial relationships on the viewers. Viewers often develop a strong connection with the influencer which frequently grows deep enough to the point where it influences their individual values and beliefs, and sometimes, their actions. One may argue parasocial relationships are inauthentic due to the fact that it is an illusion created resulting in a one sided relationship. There is no genuinely and vulnerability since the influencers often display a curated persona to the media.

I think this is a really interesting point as to why authenticity is highly valued. Regarding authenticity as an aspect of individual personality, we also value the sense of integrity which comes with it. Especially when one's actions align with their values and beliefs, they are respected for their authenticity.

An interesting fact I came across is that the Web 2.0 used chronological feeds where posts would come up on user's feed in the order of recency whereas social media today uses algorithmic feeds which is based on the user's interests, activity and interactions on the social media.

This is the first time that I'm hearing of such platforms and it defies the idea that social media always reinforces connectivity and is mostly beneficial in some way or the other. This also brings into question how although media similar to this creates high levels of toxicity, misinformation, manipulation and more, they still continue to exist for various reasons such as revenue earned from the platforms, the right to free speech and more which I personally find extremely unethical.

I am not very familiar with this data type but I find it fascinating how it can store a variety of different data types and the efficiency it offers when it comes to looking up pieces of information from a big list.

I think that the importance of metadata and the contextual power it holds is not often recognised. It adds another layer of depth to a post by including background information regarding the post. In addition, there is a sense of ownership of the post which is included as a part of metadata. However through a different perspective, it can also be deemed controversial as it is to some extent quite intrusive as it does expose user location, movements, behavioural insights and time stamps which a lot of users may not approve of.

Bots have proven to be useful and beneficial in social media platforms in many different ways. One of them is the fact that they enable routine tasks to be automated. For example, there will always be the need for queries or questions in general to be responded to and the utilisation of bots makes this process much easier in the sense that there is no requirement for humans to take time to read, understand and come up with a suitable response to a huge number of questions or inquiries.

I didn't really understand the purpose or use of fake bots initially but I came to the realisation that in some ways they are a form of deception and manipulation and may be used to bring certain things to attention while also maintaining a sense of anonymity; hence, the human behind it does not have to take any accountability. I found this quite interesting.

I am a very strong believer of individualism in the aspect that in order to fulfil any specific purpose or prioritising individual desires requires you to go against the natural flow and harmony of the situation. In this case, forcing something to happen is the only way to achieve an objective or a greater impact. Furthermore, we are bound to face resistance and struggles in life which lead to our personal growth and achievements. Hence in these scenarios I believe that Taoism does not fully account for overcoming challenges and staying true to yourself.

What I find interesting is the fact that not only do things go viral and trend due to their emotional appeal, relatability or whether it gives rise to controversy and debate acting as a social and/or cultural trigger, but the idea of 'social currency'. Often, things that go viral on a platform like twitter either add to, or take away from one's social status in an extreme manner. In this case, given the time period, Justine's tweet touched on highly charged topics at that time involving sensitive issues related to race and priviledge in society. That tweet sparked controversy and took away from her social status resulting in the loss of her job in that period of time.