I found this really interesting as it does show our own biases. The "don't read the comments" line is interesting because it highlights how big tech exploits the algorithm by ensuring maximium attention (which often means negative content is pushed upwards). This can create a cycle of hate that hurts the original creator. But now "dont read the comments" has been reformed into a more "corporate" thing. These companies are happy to profit, but not actually contribute for meaningful good. I wonder if there will be any future redesigns of social media sites to reduce this spread of hate and fear.

I wonder if the hired moderators are still a thing in this day and age, with the rise of AI. Perhaps maybe a combinition of the two would be best for cost and effectiveness. The people mods have their own bias's towards posts, so although they are likely trained, there still will be that unconscious bias. I guess however though, there are also bias's in the data sets that AI are trained off of. But yeah, overall this was making me thinking about the benefits and drawbacks of using hired moderators versus bots.

This article really reminded me of why I hate doomscrolling. People literally melt their brains just scrolling away - obviously I'm joking but it does feel that way. I think especially for the younger generations there will be serious consequences for this. As I said in my previous comments, social intereactions are starting to near into a dissociative state. For kids, the implications of this in the future might be insane. I hope more research is done on this dissociative state from doom-scrolling, as there could be serious mental implications (which have been sort of covered in this reading).

I hate doomscrolling. The term itself is more of a joke, and was initally used as one. However, and I mean this seriously, its become a lifestyle for some people. I know this, as I almost fell into the trap of endlessly doomscrolling instead of working. The amount of times I've gone to hang out with close, and distant friends, and it ends with people doomscrolling instead of being in the moment is CRAZY. I think there are serious implications of it too, so I can't wait to read more to find out. Covid was a starting point for this addiction in my eyes.

I find the concept of the attention economy extremley relevant especially modern day. I know people (atleast in my bubble) started to become aware of it, when Trump first ran. I think this is because he manipulated the attention economy so well, and the news stations etc allowed him to do that. With more eyes, you have more influence, and with more influence you have more eyes. The algorithm feeds into this cycle. With Trump too, people who support and dislike him feed into the cycle. Its incredible at the end of the day, the thought processes behind the attention algorithm.

I think variations are the main ways things go viral, especially when talking about memes. With slight modifications to the joke/concept, it expands the lifespan of the content before it goes stale. This repeition of the "base" content is great food for the algorithm, as it keeps retention and view count. I think this is why you tend to see that memes or content with low variability/mutation tend to fade alot faster than things that are versitile or adaptable.

I've heard of this story soooo many times before hand. It truly is fascinating, at first, but when you look into it it becomes quite disturbing. How is Target knowing about a pregnancy before her father? More importantly, is Target building a profile on her? What are they doing with that data? So many questions come up from this story, and it really shows the extent to which data is being valued these days atleast in my eyes.

I think the argument that people do tend to intereact across these isolated chambers created by the algorithm is true, but it doesn't account for the full picture. Yes- people are able to see different opinions online, and sometimes the algorithm will provide as such. However, the algorithm feeds on enagement. Which one are people more likely to enage with, one disucssing a dicey topic fueled with emotional responses, or a rational analysis on the situation. The emotional responses attract both positive and negative reactions, which only feed into the cycle of engagement. However the anaylsis, eh, maybe some people will like it.

As I stated earlier, people often feed into this cycle especially when fueled by negative emotions. This encourages the algorithm to keep promoting the content that a) gets you to keep thinking a certain way and b) content that opposes such views for you to get enraged by.

The reason I chose this source specifically (to look into) is because I almost was colour blind. It's a long story but pretty much I stabbed myself in the eye and barely missed a spot that is a big part in seeing colours (atleast what the doctor said), so I was curious on finding out more today. I found it interesting that most colour blindness was onset from genetics/ inherited. Also, colour blindness tends to not be all colours, but rather certain ones. For example, red green is the most common form of colour blindness. Now, this isn't full on blindness to red and green, but rather the inability (or difficulty) to distinguish those hues.

I find this interesting. With the rise of the internet, etc, I bet theres been alot of decisions that have had to be made in regard to disability access. The text to speech / annotate is a good example of this. However, when it comes to things that have made things not accessible, not much comes to mind. I think this is clearly because I have not been in the position where I am thinking about accessibility, so I'm oblivious to what is actually going on. It shows the importance of perspective, and all the considerations / time thinking about perspective that developers (hopefully!) go through. With more time and resources for accesibility designers, hopefully we can make the relationship less complicated in regards to accessibility design.

I find it amazing how there is no law in place that forces companies in instances like this to indivdually go out and tell people they've been data breached. Especially when data like location is being revealed. Not only is this breach just in the U.S, but its global too. I find the lack of regluation here a bit astounding. I do understand Facebook's perspective of "its nothing we can fix now," but regardless you should still do what you can to reduce the consquences AND prevent it from happening again. Though the 5 billion agreement was setteled, I don't agree with the fact that they shouldn't be forced to notify

I find the regional differences between the privacy rights to be really interesting, especially as someone from both regions. I know the EU has alot more consumer rights than the US, so it adds up that their Privacy rights are more clearcut than the US's. The fact that a "right" can be inferred is strange, as ultimately having the right to do things tends to be a black and white issue. Having this right in a gray error seems extremley strange to me, and fishy. I wonder what most voters in the U.S would say about the right for privacy, as I would assume (maybe incorrectly though), that it is universally wanted.

The fact that facebook admits that they are tracking you is enough in itself. I'm suprised people aren't more motivated to act on this tracking. I feel like people don't act in resposne to news like this because they feel its out of their control, and maybe even for some that it doesnt matter that much. My dad is someone who was realyl scared by this, and tried to turn of all tracking but even then, they are still tracking you to some degree. The concept of shadow profiles is honestly pretty scary. I would argue they have no right in tracking someone who has not signed up to a) have an account and b) be tracked. I wonder how other people feel about this topic.

I did this a few years ago, and it was insanely accurate. Too accurate to the point where I disabled all of the personalized ads on google etc. I find it weird how much they track you, and it really makes you think how much information and data they have on you. The target pregnancy story comes to mind, where target was able to determine this guys daughter's pregnancy before he (her father) even found out. I see both ways, how it feels invasive, but I could theoretically see ways people justify it.

This source really made me think about the potential "good" uses of trolling. Now obviously, "good" is a relative term here. But when many people think about trolling, they think of things that are just there to spread hate, with no "real" purpose. This example of trolling has a bit more complexity too it, and it has a more anti-giant corporation vibe to it, not necessarily affecting the general public too much. Overall, this source reminded me of the subjectivity of trolling and intention, and what is classified as good/right.

I've heard this alot before, and I think its generally true. Alot of the time these trolls feed off the negative energy they seek out to create, and so engaging with them only promotes their behaviour. I think it can be hard at times to not engage with them, as when someone is trying to get a reaction out of you it takes restraint to not. Overall though, I agree with this quote for the most part, and I find it interesting that its the 14th rule of the internet

I feel this could be related to the algorithim, as well as his own personal feelings. It is known that anger creates more engagement then joy, and when utilized correctly can get you on the front page of twitter (or whatever equivalent). Perhaps Trump (/ his team), knew this, and wanted to gain as much traction as possible. By posting a lot of negativly themed content (using words like sad, disgusted, angry etc), Trump's words get amplified across the platform, meaning he reaches more potential voters.

This section reminds me of the strong force of anonymity, and a quote I heard from somone - I think Mike Tyson. It was something about how anonymity on the internet allows people to say things that would normally get them a punch in the face. I think it captures the key aspects of anonmity. Although it could allow people to have true, genuine conversations with strangers, it also opens up the realm of trolling for people, which can do a significant amount of harm. I don't think it is black or white on if anonmity is good or not, as it really does depend on the use case.

The fact that even a once giant at the time myspace was laying off this many shows how communication transform over time. Once our needs/demands shift from generation to generation, and tools get stronger and stronger, we need new systems to keep up. Myspace could have been the victim of this, and I see current giants in communication like email taking a similar drop off (though maybe not AS much). Specifically from the article, myspace got rid of 47% of their workforce, which is astounding for a once communication giant.

This was making me wonder where the future of communication is going, and how it could change from generation to generation. I find it interesting that we don't truly use email until we properly start work etc. From my own experience (though biased), it feels like email is still widely utilized but other forms of communication like direct messaging (on a platform like teams) is taking over. Could we start seeing the end of email (atleast the start of the dropoff of its usage)? I think maybe as more generations grow up utilizing direct messaging.

This quote from the article: "These images are so ingrained in our imagination, most people that haven’t been to the continent believe that all of Africa looks like this, adding to the colonialist generalisation of Africa as “one country” was really interesting. Why? Because this view of Africa as this one homogenous place is one that is passivley accepted, even though it is inaccurate. Just because we see this voluntourism (a term, I have not heard of before, but I find extremley interesting), constantly through charities etc. It paints a picture, one that isn't quite reality. What is even more interesting is that the people behind these photos (for the voluntourism aspect) aren't necessarily doing it in bad intention either, in some way they are being a bit ignorant, although that is subjective. Overall, I just found this article to be really insightful as the topic isn't one that me an American wouldn't think about too often, but has an impact on how we see the world.

This thought instantly came to my mind. Although I see utilitarianism as a helpful framework in some cases, I see it as a harmful one in this case. Why? I think it could be extremley subjective, with major consequences. With things like generative AI, a utilitarian perspective may see the benefit (utility) of AI outweigh the negatives, such as the loss of critical thinking skills in students. Just because generative AI might help with efficency, doesn't mean its consequences should be ignored either.

I found this really interesting. Although I was young at the time this film was released, so I wasn't thinking about botting on social media, I never would have imagined that over half of the online hate for it was not "authentic." I wonder what the socio-political benefits would have been for the author(s). Why put all that man power into trolling/hating a star wars films. I also found it interesting that Russian trolls could have played a major role in it, and that brings the same question: Why? The article highlights it could be to sway people's values, or atleast sway their values against those presented in the film. Overall, this is extremley interesting and could highlight alot about the social media sphere (especially with dog piling, etc, as it could be mostly bots doing it, which reminds me of dead internet theory).

My experience is in line with that final remark. Often, I find these help bots just helpful enough to keep talking to them, but not useful enough to actually solve the problem (or get the help I need). The more I think about this though, the more I ask: are these limitations purely technical, or are they intended too? If these companies gave too much power to the bots, such bots could run rampant, and could be a liability to the company. I find it an interesting thing to think about, but obviously bots (espically older ones) have their technical limitations.

From what I understand about Confucianism, it has a societial focus. If all individuals are seeking to become better people, society will also become better because of it. Additionally, this description fails to specifically define some of these key concepts in Confucianism, like filial piety, ren, and Li (the one that is missed out mostly in the description). In particular, Li (the ritual and proper conduct aspect) plays a huge role in Confucianism as it provides the structured (and almost daily) behaviours that distinct it from other frameworks.

Over time, I've heard this phrase get utilized less and less, but it still is relevant overall. In conversations regarding Instagram especially, people talk about how whats portrayed on there is not real. In a lot of ways, I agree with this train of thought. What we tend to portray on social media apps (specifically like Instagram) is a better version of ourselves-- its almost (but not really) "fake." Ultimately, I do hear this phrase in most conversations regarding social media, and especially when adults are talking about it to kids.