I think infinite scroll is a classic example of “friction-reducing design,” but its impact is actually a bit scary. In the past, with formats like search results, you had to click “next page” after finishing one page. While this action was a bit cumbersome, it provided a pause point, reminding you, “Should I stop now?” Infinite scroll completely removes that barrier. You just keep scrolling down, and content automatically loads, making you completely unaware of how long you've been scrolling.

I think this is also why scrolling through social media is so addictive: it's not because we genuinely want to look for that long, but because the design eliminates every opportunity to stop.

I find this example particularly relatable because I frequently encounter this issue myself when playing mobile games: the “X” button for closing ads is designed to be super tiny, making it incredibly difficult to tap. Sometimes you accidentally click into the ad page instead. On the surface, this seems like a minor design detail, but it's actually a deliberate tactic to increase friction, making it harder for users to leave the ad. For advertisers and platforms, this keeps users engaged longer and even generates accidental clicks, boosting revenue. But from the user's perspective, this design is downright annoying since it exploits our attention and clumsy interactions to “force” us into unwanted actions. I believe this goes beyond ordinary design; it's manipulative design.

When I think about how data is used on the web, I think the concept of "utility computing" is actually useful, because it reminds us: do we really see all the data before deciding whether something is "more beneficial than harmful"? Many times we only use the information we have, but the missing data may be the most important part. I also agree with the text about "harmful ignorance", because in reality, it is really easy for people to ignore some data that makes them uncomfortable or not in line with their own position, so the results will be more like supporting the choice they want to make. This is especially true in social media and algorithmic recommendations, where we may be seeing things that are already filtered, so if we don't ask, "What's missing?" we may be biased in our utility calculations.

I found that many websites have different gender options. I think it's a hard option to collect. Many times what everyone thinks gender is not even on the website. In order to be fair and treat each user equally, we need to provide them with the most appropriate options.

It is "confrontational", but it has a social justice purpose - to use automation to counter the "pseudo-equality propaganda" of corporate marketing and bring the real structural problem (the wage gap) to the public. This example shows that some antagonistic bots can instead become tools for monitoring power.

The "bot" itself is not good or bad, but depends on what it is designed for and how the rules of the platform constrain it. For example, friendly bots (automatic captioning, vaccine progress, red panda images) essentially improve the efficiency of information acquisition and enhance the user experience; antagonistic bots (spam, fake fans, astroturfing), however, can create false public opinion and make people think that "many people support/oppose a certain opinion", which directly affects public judgment

I thought it was interesting that many of these frameworks try to describe what makes a “good person,” but they don’t always agree about what that actually looks like. For example, Confucianism emphasizes rituals and social roles, while Taoism encourages doing less and letting things unfold naturally. Reading them side-by-side made me realize that ethical behavior can depend a lot on what a culture values, not just on universal rules.

I think this idea shows how social media can distort people's lives. When all we see is mostly good news, filters, and edited photos, it's easy to compare ourselves to something that was never real. Over time, this can affect our self-esteem and our expectations of what is "normal". This reminds me that we often forget that social media is more like a highlight reel than real life.

I think it was interesting to put a minimalist platform like Yo together with a platform specifically for low-income blind people. The former looks "simple and easy to use," but the fact that it has fewer features means it can't do much. Specialized platforms, on the other hand, are more complex but really help those who need it most. It made me think: Platform design really depends on who you want to serve.