This was a prank done in 1957 however, I have heard about it in recent years. Basically, the BBC pranked British people into believing that spaghetti grew from trees. They were able to fool so many people since not many people in Britain knew about the origins of pasta, but this form of trolling is rather light compared to what's going on nowadays.

I think this concept of internet trolling newbies has essentially become easier on X now with the whole payment system for verification. Prior, you can probably tell who's real and who's fake based on profile picture, profile info, etc, but now it's a whole new ball game. Everyone can pay $10 for a verification check, so there's no real distinction between what's real or fake.

This basically links to a Wikipedia page about code switching. Essentially, it means to change the way you speak depending on your surroundings or who you are interacting with. I find myself doing this more based on who I am interacting with but it varies by different people.

This concept definition really resonated with me and made me think about the reality of the old and new twitter, specifically the verified tag. People used to listen and authenticate people online based on their verification tags, such as celebrities. Nowadays, that aspect is taken away because the verification tag can be bought now so it removes that barrier from fake/real.

This article highlights Facebook's buy or bury technique in order to maintain its monopoly on other apps. Facebook failed to innovate when going mobile, which forced its hand to resort to this method. Facebook either bought out platforms or restricted access, which imposed their monopoly and stifled competition. This method caused the FTC to create a claim against facebook

Emailing has shown to withstand the test of time despite being invented in the 1960s and 1970s. Email is a core platform for communications by businesses, people, etc. I found the date of origination of the email to be the biggest shocker.

The writer talks about how Elon Musk greatly affected the state of Twitter with the acquisition. The number of bots on the site increased over timelines, while the company itself wasn't making much revenue. With the addition of more bots, the author quotes how there are many more controversial topics arising and causing misinformation to those who don't know much.

This is very important because data collection and application for utilitarianism can be complicated and flawed. If data is collected and skewed towards one opinion rather than the other, those who don't have the same views will be affected. This brings up the question. What is the appropriate data collection and interpretation for total utilitarianism?

This article really shows how click farming works and gives readers a look into the number of devices that are used for the whole operation. As well as show how dangerous it can be with authenticating true or false headlines, articles, etc. We usually depend on the number of views/likes something has in order to gain a perspective, but with click farming, any article can go viral. This article does a nice job putting things into perspective for social media/internet users like myself

The bot that I like is on Discord called Musico bot, which allows users to queue up songs, playback controls, and listen to the same songs with friends in your voice chat. I find it very convenient, helpful, and interactive for the whole Discord party.

I don't hear this as much as my other peers, but I can see how they view that. Some people present themselves differently on social media than in real life. They may act totally differently than what they actually post, which brings up the thought that social media isn't real life.

I find Deontology interesting, but I rather disagree because everyone has a different perception of what they view as right or wrong. How is someone punished by others for wrongdoing when they view it as right? The paragraph then goes on to talk about Immanuel Kant being a baseline for ethics, but it states it doesn't need to be based on him, so how would this be derived by others?