This article talks about how adult pranks on children can have a damaging effect on them in the future. The article dives into the psychological side of parent pranks and how it causes lost in trust and betrayal.

I think an important factor in making an instance of public shaming bad is the animosity and extent of people's comments. People use the internet mainly as a shield because they feel unstoppable and won't get punished for how they shame or bully people. Often the comments can be very brutal.

This article highlights the career of Chrissy Teigen and how she has been encapsulated by cancel culture on social media due to her comments and remarks that she makes. Cancel culture has seen a big rise, and Chrissy has seen the full throttle of that due to her remarks.

I haven't seen an excessive form of harassment on social media, but I can think about comment sections of like sports teams, and they are just making fun of people for their fandom. Knowing sports fans, they are very blunt, and their comments can come off as rude.

This article mentions the potential opportunity faced by technology in trying to facilitate the aspects of real-life face-to-face interactions. People can use technology for more ways to improve their communication skills and use it as a tool to interact with people around the world.

I think I've participated in crowdsourcing online by liking or rating something on social media. I think this contributed to the platform’s ranking algorithms and helped determine what gets shown to others.

This article is very interesting because it dives into the 100,000 people who moderate and delete posts to keep the internet safe. They endure and are exposed to so many posts that can be disturbing and damaging to their mental. Their impact is so overlooked, but they are essential to the safety of others scoping the internet.

The dangers of having no moderation include the potential spread of false information. For example, someone can post a harmful post in one of the languages that aren't moderated, and they can spread a whole slew of hurtful comments with no consequences. The potential for danger is heightened with no moderation.

Spamming is when a mass group of people is sent multiple unsolicited messages from someone they don't know. People do fall into the trap of these messages, and it's a problem when they are potentially hacked, etc. An example of this I can think of is when my phone got multiple messages sent to me about my SSN has been compromised, etc, but i knew it was spam because it was sent by a Gmail user on iMessage.

I have been accused of breaking a social media rule, but it was rather small. I posted a photo with a song, which was later removed from social media due to the artist being controversial in the news. This wasn't specifically my fault, but they did have to restrict my post.

This article highlights how people, such as famous influencers, create unrealistic body standards through editing and Photoshop. Through these standards, it can harm people's mental health since they have a thought to compare themselves to others. These comparisons are very damaging, and they're causing people to resort to surgery to compete with the comparisons.

Personally, Social media hasn't negatively affected my mental health; rather, it's time-consuming. I often find myself doom-scrolling down a rabbit hole of posts, but I must admit that I do learn a lot of information. So there are positives and negatives.

In this article, the author talks about how human communication and social media have evolved over time. The interesting fact I took away from this is that the concept of social media isn't entirely new and has similarities of human traditions in the past.

The way I think this should be approached is credit to the original user. Acknowledging that the repost does help the popularity of the content. For example a simple tag or credit label to the original poster should be more than enough.

This article talks about how Facebook limits its users from opting out their phone number for the "look up" feature. This makes the user's number visible to users searching, even though the intention of inputting the number was for extra security. Facebook has viewed this more as a tool rather than a threat, so it doesn't look like they will offer a solution to users' concerns.

This is interesting, and I have personally experienced this firsthand with one of my friends searching up merch from a local brand near me. In about the next 5 scrolls on social media, that brand pops up as an ad for me, which exemplifies the algorithm working with people nearby.

This article talks about the people who are affected by societal barriers and how there is more work to be done to include people. However, there are innovations to be talked about, like the new traffic lights to help people who are color blind and can't distinguish the various lights. There is still a lot of work to be done, but there is an effort being made to include everyone.

Ability-based design is very crucial today when it comes to new products. The way your device can adapt to your personalizations and environment is a big draw for consumers and helpful for everyone. An ability-based design that comes to mind for me is Apple CarPlay, adjusting the map brightness dependent on your surroundings and time of day.

The General Data Protection Regulation is in place to create a bigger barrier for data privacy within the EU. This is very different from the United States, since user privacy is more lenient here. The EU had this regulation in place to restrain illegal data sharing.

Metadata is so tiny yet contains so much information that it can expose privacy. The CEO and murder case is an example of how dangerous it can be. If people were able to find him in Guatemala, it just shows that anyone can be found, which can be kind of scary.

Spurious relationships are two variables that seem to be correlated with each other, but in the end, it turns out they have no effect on one another. This can be challenging for data scientists to decipher, as the human brain is prone to making connections.

This is very interesting to think about in the grand scheme of things. On our phones, all of these social media apps/sites are free to the public, which brings up the question of how these platforms have the money/capital to support the development. This brings up a thought of mine about how much these platforms make for each client/user and how it is measured.

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?