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