This section helped me understand how Web 2.0 fundamentally changed social media from static websites into interactive platforms centered around user profiles and ongoing updates. These early design choices still shape how users interact with feeds today and help explain why engagement and visibility became so important later on.

This section helped me understand how early social media platforms were not originally designed for large-scale influence or automation, but rather for small communities and personal connection. Seeing how features like feeds, likes, and sharing evolved over time makes it clear how design decisions made early on still shape user behavior and power dynamics today.

The “utility calculus” framing is helpful because it makes clear that ethical judgment depends on what data we choose to count and whose outcomes we include. Online, “pernicious ignorance” can look like focusing on likes/engagement while ignoring downstream harms (e.g., non-consensual images, harassment, or impacts on people we don’t personally know), which makes the calculation feel easier but morally distorted.

When the platform sets data constraints, they not only make "technical" choices, they decide who is considered the default user. The example of the address form shows how people outside the hypothetical specification can either do additional work or eventually distort themselves and become "bad data". The system may later regard it as a user error, not a design failure.

The definition of bots in this chapter highlights that automation exists on a spectrum rather than as a simple bot vs. human distinction. I found it interesting that many accounts we interact with daily may be partially automated, which challenges the assumption that bots are always deceptive or malicious. This makes me think that ethical concerns should focus more on transparency and intent, not just whether automation is involved.

The discussion of bots influencing public opinion raises important ethical questions about power and accountability. Even if a bot spreads accurate information, the scale and speed of automation can still distort public discourse. This suggests that ethical evaluation of bots should consider not only content accuracy but also their impact on human decision-making and democratic processes.

The discussion of bots influencing public opinion raises important ethical questions about power and accountability. Even if a bot spreads accurate information, the scale and speed of automation can still distort public discourse. This suggests that ethical evaluation of bots should consider not only content accuracy but also their impact on human decision-making and democratic processes.