It defines capitalism as private ownership and free market competition, but ignores the extreme inequality of ownership and the enormous power held by capital holders. It also views "competition" as always leading to good results, when in reality, competition can degenerate into monopolies, exploitation, or companies disregarding ethics in pursuit of profit maximization.

CEOs are legally obligated to maximize profits, even if some decisions are clearly harmful to users or society. I always thought corporate greed was voluntary, but the explanation of fiduciary duty in the article makes me think that the system itself drives them to do so. So should we continue to blame individual leaders, or should we question the systemic structure that compels them to put shareholder interests above all else?

When I read about the “attunement–break–repair” cycle, it felt completely different from how people actually react in real life. Caregivers are supposed to show a child that “the problem is the behavior, not you,” and I think this idea applies to how adults are treated online too. But honestly, most people don’t offer you that kind of repair at all.

I think it’s ironic that public shaming is supposed to leave room for people to eventually rejoin the community, because social media basically gives them no space to do that. The reading says shaming should allow for the possibility of reintegration, but online most people just want entertainment and don’t care whether someone ever gets the chance to repair anything. It makes the internet feel like a place that amplifies the “shame” part while intentionally deleting the “repair” part.

What shocked me was that law enforcement told her, "This isn't a crime because you didn't feel personal fear," which I found absurd. Why does our legal system still not treat online harassment as a personal harm?

The “puddle-splashing” example made me notice how much of modern online harassment works the same way: each individual comment might look harmless on its own, but collectively they create real psychological damage. I’ve seen people dog-piled on social media, where no single message would qualify as illegal, but the overall effect is abusive.

I was surprised to discover that the majority of the website's content is handled by a very small editorial team, especially since most of the editors are male. So, how neutral and representative can Wikipedia truly be if the people shaping the information come from such a narrow group?

This reminds me of Wikipedia, but it also makes me wonder: if anyone can anonymously edit a page, what happens when someone adds misleading or inappropriate content? And what mechanisms exist to detect and correct these issues？

She became the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, but the fact that she didn't even have a Wikipedia page before winning the award highlights how many female scientists' achievements may go unnoticed or be underestimated. I wonder how many other outstanding women scientist have had their contributions buried behind the scenes simply because they haven't received the attention and recognition they deserve.

I believe the working conditions of content moderators can cause emotional harm and injustice. It's been said that Facebook frequently recruits moderators from low-income countries and exposes them daily to violent or disturbing content, which could lead to psychological trauma. I think companies and governments should provide content moderators with appropriate compensation and psychological support, rather than treating them as easily replaceable labor.

Automated moderation is unfair to smaller creators. Even if only a small fraction of appeals are wrong, those errors can completely ruin a channel or their income. It feels like YouTube's system is more inclined to protect large companies than individual users.

Mills argues that social contracts are often formulated and serve those in power, which is closely linked to how tech companies (mostly run by mainstream social groups) decide what online discourse is "acceptable." It feels unfair that content from marginalized groups is often more easily deleted, while biased content continues to exist.

Platforms like Instagram encourage people to compare their lives to unrealistic images. Even though Facebook is aware of these negative impacts, it hasn't made any real changes. I don't think social media is entirely bad, but the constant pressure to maintain a perfect image and get likes can easily damage a person's self-confidence. Instead of persuading teenagers to abandon social media, we should focus on teaching them how to use it healthily and helping them understand that what they see online isn't always true.

I find the concept of "digital detox" interesting, but also overly idealistic. The article argues that simply viewing social media as harmful oversimplifies the complexities of reality, I agree with that. As a person who uses social media daily, I find complete abstinence is unrealistic. Instead, I believe it's important to recognize how platforms manipulate our attention and emotions. The issue isn't just about the tools themselves, but also how we use them. This perspective is more practical than simply labeling technology as "bad."

The article explains how the quote “A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on” has changed over time, I thought it was interesting how many people wrongly credit it to Mark Twain or Churchill, which shows how we like to attach big names to make a saying sound more powerful. It really reminds me of how fast misinformation spreads on social media today，people share things so quickly that the truth never has time to catch up. Even though the quote is old, it still feels completely true in our world now.

I find the description of internet memes as "cultural genes" quite interesting. It reminds me that the evolution of online information mirrors biological evolution; the most "adapted" ideas survive because they spread faster or attract more attention. However, unlike biological evolution, internet memes don't require authenticity to survive. Therefore, social media algorithms, like "natural selection," prioritize promoting content with the highest engagement.

This article made me realize how apps “remember” more than we want them to — and don’t know when to stop. The author’s experience shows how technology treats emotional pain like just another data point.

I think it’s kind of scary how recommendation algorithms know so much about us, yet we barely know how they actually work. The fact that platforms keep their algorithms secret makes me feel uneasy — it’s like we’re being studied without knowing what the experiment is. I’ve definitely noticed times when I talked about something and it suddenly showed up on my feed

It really made me stop and think about what “normal vision” even means. If some women can see more colours than most people, then the typical human colour range is just one version of reality but our “normal” might actually be a limitation.

I really like how this chapter explains that disability isn’t just about what someone can’t do, but about what society expects people should be able to do. It made me realize that so many “disabilities” come from poor design choices, not personal limits. For example, being short or colorblind only becomes a problem when things are built without those people in mind.

I find it really concerning that Facebook decided not to notify users after such a massive data breach. It feels like they care more about protecting their reputation than protecting the people who use their platform. Even if the leaked information was already public, users still deserve to know when their data is being used or exposed in unsafe ways. I think this shows how weak data privacy laws are, especially when companies can make their own choices about whether to inform people.

I've rethought what privacy actually means online. I've always assumed my personal information was private and secure, but this reflects the trust we've unwittingly placed in these platforms. Once information is uploaded online, is it truly private? Even if we delete something, a copy might still remain on the server. So, I'm now unsure if deletion is even necessary.

I feel like this breaks a basic idea of consent : if you’ve never joined, you never agreed to be tracked. And yet the only options seem to be: accept it or avoid the web entirely, which is basically impossible. So I am question how much control I really have, If the system can build a “shadow profile” of my interests without me opting in, then is there truly any privacy left?

I think it’s interesting how the Bluesky API gives researchers access to certain data but still limits what they can see. It reminds me that even when a platform claims to be “open,” it still controls what kind of information we’re allowed to analyze. I wonder how much bias this creates in research if the data we get only shows a part.

The Jenkem prank shows that trolls know exactly how to weaponize sensationalism and exploit weaknesses in journalistic culture to make a point， if journalists treated troll-generated stories with more skepticism instead of just chasing clicks, would trolls lose most of their power?

I agree with the idea that just “not feeding the trolls” doesn’t always work. Sometimes ignoring them gives them more space to keep spreading hate, especially when the target is already being attacked or harassed. I think the article makes a good point that it’s unfair to put all the responsibility on the person being targeted.

I think it’s interesting how the article showed that Trump’s tweets were not random but followed clear patterns. The idea that the tone and device he used could show which tweets were his own made me realize how carefully public figures can use social media to shape their image. It also makes me think about the power a posts have, one tweet can change people’s opinions or even affect politics.

This made me think about how people’s reactions to “fake” content depend on their expectations. Some fans felt betrayed, but others didn’t really care once they knew it was scripted. I feel like this shows that people don’t always need something to be 100% real to enjoy it, they just want to know what kind of relationship they’re in. It reminds me of how influencers act online now. Even if their posts are planned, as long as we know it’s part of their brand and not pretending to be completely natural, it still feels authentic in its own way.

I agree with the idea in the last paragraph: conspiracy theories are not newthings, they've been a part of American politics almost since its inception. Perhaps we're just seeing an old pattern in new cloth

It’s interesting how communication during Web 1.0 required more effort and focus. People had to log in, find a thread, and join conversations on purpose. I feel like that made interactions more meaningful compared to today’s, it makes me think that technology back then encouraged deeper attention to communicate, even though it was slower.

From a personal perspective ,as a user and content consumer, this article makes me question how much of what seems “popular” is genuinely . It also makes me want to scrutinize any claims of “viral reach” how many of those views were real?

This part got me thinking about how much invisible information we leave behind online. When I post a content, I usually only consider the image or video itself, not embedded details like the time, location, or device used. This metadata can easily be used to track or identify individuals, raising serious privacy and security concerns. So I am wondring if most social media users realize that deleting a post doesn't necessarily remove this hidden data.

I read c2 article，a single phone can masquerade as 20 different devices simply by switching its IP address. This means a single room of phones can pretend to be thousands of online users. What surprised me most was the article's description of workers sitting in a room, manually manipulating these phones to generate fake likes and follows. To me, this makes click farms feel more like using "bots" to trick the algorithm, then using real people to maintain the illusion.

The example of the donkey protest reminded me that robots operate in a similar way. The donkey doesn't know what message it's sending, and the robot doesn't really "understand" what it's doing. But humans are still behind them, determining the message and the actions. I think this shows that we shouldn't view robots as neutral or harmless. They're just tools, and they always reflect the thoughts of the people who create or use them.

I think the Golden Rule is very interesting, since it appears across different cultures and traditions. This shows that empathy and fairness are values people have always pursued. But what makes me feel conflicted is that in modern society, especially on social media, this is often ignored. Many companies don’t really follow “ What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” On the contrary, if they can raise attention or boost popularity through public opinion, they will often stop at nothing to exploit users’ emotions and attention.

Ubuntu stood out to me and its idea that “a person is a person through other people.” I like how it shifts the focus away from individual gain and toward community well being. In the context of social media, this is very relevant, because platforms often encourage competition for likes and followers instead of fostering real connection. I feel this idea could really guide how platforms treat users and how users treat each other