I don't, as ai detectors automatically delete some comments.

It wasn't very easy to do, and I respect them more and am more understanding if they get stuff incorrect.

Child abuse was the easiest decision to delete, types of harassment were the most difficult (especially when they're directed at famous people)

It made me rush through some things that I shouldn't of rushed in.

It was stressful as I wasn't sure what deserved to be deleted and what deserved to stay up.

I love "This you?" memes and references. Typically, this only happens when someone says or does something that implies they deserve to get karma backfiring on them, where someone will find something the person said or did in the past as a form of "exposing them". Although this can be humorous, this begs the question on whether it is worth it for anyone to post personal details about themselves if someone will use it against them in the future.

This was interesting news for me. I was not aware that intentionally spraying water at me is not considered illegal. What if it was someone with a water gun instead? If they ha aimed it at me and shot water, would not that be considered harassment? If so, what is the difference between the two?

Gofundme is a crowdsourcing platform where various people can donate to a specific cause that they want to support, and typically there is an overall donation goal. However from what i have seen, the majority of contributions on gofundme are from familiar faces. How would a person market their gofundme to other people that they might know? What would make a person enthusiastic about their cause?

I found this statistic very interesting, because of the amount of content on Wikipedia. This means that on average, the average person in the top 1% of editors on wikipedia have likely written dozens, if not hundreds of articles. What makes someone become one of these users? Same thing with twitter, what makes a person want to post that much?

Copypastas are lines of text that a user can copy and paste, often being humorous or "shitposts". These serve almost no purpose other than being annoying pretty much, and possibly drawing a picture with the text. Why do people enjoy copypastas so much (myself included)? Is there anyway copypastas can be used for good, or are they just annoying to look at?

This makes me wonder, what is the correlation between social media companies and the government? How much control does the government have over what policies social media platforms have, and over who gets banned. I remember there was a scandal about social media platforms not showing the Hunter Biden story prior to the 2020 election. Is there any reason why some content gets censored even though it doesn't violate any policies?

I have never heard of digital detox, but I have seen people discussing a dopamine detox. The primary difference between the two is that a dopamine detox also includes anything that triggers your dopamine receptors. This makes me wonder what the benefit of each one is, and whether its better to do one over the other.

This is something I have seen often on the internet. People would self-diagnose themselves with something that they don't actually have. However, it seems like occasionally these people do it intentionally for the sake of having "fun". In other occasions, it feels like the person themselves in a way "convinces" themselves that they have that illness (primarily mental illnesses). Is it possible to actually make yourself believe that you actually have an illness that you origibnally did not have?

I remember when everyone used to hate Rebecca Black because of this song. However, I have recently seen that her other music is extremely critically acclaimed and has one of the "best pop albums" of the 2000s. How do we alter social media to not allow something to impact an artists' impact and artistry?

From what I noticed, the majority of old memes were this kind of stuff where people could tease at others who posted themselves doing stuff. Have the standards for our humor changed? Today although making fun of people is common online, it isn't as direct as it used to be.

I found this interesting as I never fully understood how the algorithm works. I had always assumed that by interacting negatively with posts it would reduce the frequency they pop up. However given that these platforms farm likes, it makes sense that they'd also farm negative interactions.

I watch a lot of youtube videos about the pro-palestine movement. A lot of times I would get recommendations on youtube to buy Pro-Israel pins, possibly as a recommendation based on my watch history being about Israel and Palestine.

I strongly disagree with this post, and believe that the author is ignorant. I have an autistic brother, and have worked with many autistic children throughout my life. Austism significantly impacts their life in many ways. The vast majority of autistic kids have symptoms that impact their day-to-day activities, and it is foolish to write an article arguing that all forms of autism are not disabilities when there are so many different symptoms and impacts that autism can have on a person's life that are not accounted for in this article.

This makes me wonder, what about people who are prone to addiction? Research shows some people are more likely to become addicted to others, and addiction, after all, is a disease. What can be done as a accessibility feature to prevent these people from developing addictions through social media and the internet? Additionally, what resources are available for people who have a rare disability that impacts their use of social media? What could be done for them?

This article talks about potential possibilities regarding everyone's data now that Elon Musk has acquired twitter. Although it doesn't give any clear answers with what will happen to our data, it does suggest that our data never really disappears even when we think we have deleted them. It reminds me of the Facebook lawsuit a few years back, and makes me wonder if these companies sell our data to the government or even other companies without our consent.

I wasn't aware that something like this had happened before, and I was shocked upon reading this. It then begs the question, should the company be held responsible for the actions of its employees? Should they have tighter security internally? Or is this just a side effect of giving people access to your data?

The Rules of the Internet is a list of guidelines for those associated with the Anonymous group and the 4chan community. They summarize popular 4chan culture and catchphrases like Rule 34 ("If it exists there is porn of it") Although there are many versions circulating online, some rules, such as Rules 1 and 2 warning against discussing certain 4chan topics, are widely accepted across internet communities. I found it interesting that this was the origin of the infamous rule34. I never knew what caused this "movement" to start.

Although trolling can sometimes be fun, there is definitely a time and place. The "old internet" was definitely ruthless, and now it feels like people on the internet are more socially aware that the internet has real-world implications. This kind of stuff still happens but not as casually, and usually there is a reason for the person "deserving" the trolling.

This shows that Trump typically writes the "Angrier" tweets on his twitter account while his staff typically write the "normal" tweets. i found this interesting due to the fact that a lot of celebrities seem to follow similar patterns. An example of this is Kanye West, who occasionally posted very out-of-pocket things on his twitter while sometimes there would be normal posts. However, the wording when Kanye posted would be very distinguishable from his social media teams' posts.

I think the main place I see this parasocial relationship is when artists have a name for their fanbase. Swifties, Beehive, etc. The artists makes the listener feel like they have a connection with them through this.

This explores the rise of Black Twitter, tracing back to its emergence near the end of 2009. It delves into the cultural significance and communal experience that Black users found on the platform, particularly during events like the BET Awards and the passing of Michael Jackson. The text captures the organic growth and unique characteristics of Black Twitter, which evolved into a space for shared experiences and funny jokes and memes.

An interesting detail is the concept of "Twitter After Dark," where users engaged in more risqué and humorous discussions, often during the late hours. This aspect highlights the multifaceted nature of Black Twitter.

From my understanding, 4chan is often seen as a "unrestricted" social media where it's the "sketchiest" social media platform and anarchy. What made someone want to make a more unrestricted version of it?

This is a link showing how porn bots actually could benefit social media platforms by encouraging likes and clicks, which aid the companies in ad revenue. I found it interesting that twitter's profit forecast is the same now as it was in 2015, showing obvious mismanagement by Elon Musk.

I think people believe whatever it is they want to. Even when it is fake news. Although I am not supportive of Trump nor Biden, I regularly see misinformation about both parties that people seem to blindly believe even when it seems obviously incorrect.

I have never actually used a site to buy engagements, so this was an eye opener for me. This site is a platform for users to buy followers, likes, and engagements on virtually all social media platforms. One detail I found interesting and a little hysterical is the fact that they say "become an instagram sensation". However in reality, buying these bots for clicks will likely not actually make a person "famous" and the hint that it does felt a little like clickbait and false advertising.

I think bots have a few purposes that social media sites can benefit from. First of all, if bots are not overwhelming the "real" content, they can inflate numbers more than what they actually are. Followers, likes, users, etc. This looks good on the company's side. Additionally, since bots add content, they therefore add clicks by real people, increasing potential ad revenue.

This is obviously one of the most important "stances" taken in ethics, where one shouldn't do what they wouldn't wish onto themselves. How does this play into the global community, where different individuals have different values and morals? Would it not be possible for one person to want someone for themselves that others would not wish?

How do people figure out these virtues? Would pursuing one of these "virtues" to the extreme not cause problems? I believe that if someone were to act in accordance to any trait, it would have to be in moderation.