This source follows a woman who was first stalked online at age 12, documenting how the harassment persisted into her adult life despite her efforts to stop it. The piece highlights how publicly available personal information makes it easy for stalkers to continuously locate and target their victims. It also shows how platforms and law enforcement were slow to respond, leaving victims with little protection. This connects directly to the chapter's discussion of how online features designed for connection can be exploited for sustained harassment.

This question raises a difficult issue because determining whether harassment is ever "justified" requires someone to make a moral judgment on behalf of the entire platform. Even if a person has done something widely considered wrong, mass online harassment tends to escalate far beyond any proportional response. Platforms would also need a consistent standard for making these calls, which seems nearly impossible given how differently people interpret what deserves punishment.

This source explains that disability is not just about a person’s condition, but also about how society is designed. It compares the medical model, which focuses on fixing the person, with the social model, which focuses on fixing barriers in the environment. One key point is that things like inaccessible buildings or websites can create disability even if the person’s condition doesn’t change. This idea is important because it shifts responsibility to designers and society, not just individuals.

One assumption many social media sites make is that users can process a lot of fast-moving content and notifications at the same time. This might not be true for people with ADHD or anxiety, who can feel overwhelmed by constant alerts, autoplay videos, and infinite scrolling. For example, a user might open the app to check one message but get distracted by multiple notifications and lose focus. This can make the platform stressful instead of helpful. It shows that the design assumes a certain attention ability that not all users have.

I feel social media punishment is sometimes too fast and too extreme. Many people online only see one message and immediately judge the person without knowing the full context or intention. Also the internet never forgets, so one mistake can affect someone’s whole life and career, which seems very unfair compared to real life where people can apologize and move on. This makes me think social media companies should maybe design systems that slow down reactions or encourage people to read more context before posting angry comments.

I think different ethical frameworks are useful because they help us look at the same problem from different angles. For example consequentialism focuses on results, but sometimes results are hard to predict, especially in social media where one post can suddenly become viral and cause unexpected harm. Deontology focuses on rules, which is good for setting boundaries like privacy rules, but sometimes following rules strictly may not lead to the best outcome. So I think in real life, especially in technology and social media, we probably need to combine multiple ethical frameworks instead of only using one.