This is an example of how capitalism always operates at a profit. I think another resource that Meta and other companies take are our attention. The attention and loyalty to their companies by creating a monopoly is what allows them to allow us to use their services for "free, " the real cost is much more impactful than just money, it is regression.

Technology is a wonderful advancement to society, but I think that it amplifies all of the problems that humans had and have, to an extreme level. Yes it brings people closer together, yes it improves connectivity, community, and collaboration, but often we forget that people are biologically are not advanced at the same rate that technology has. This causes a lot of conflict on the internet, and really regressive behavior from people twith just easier access and less accountability.

Yes and no, I think that is depends on the crime and the person. Some people have no remorse and how can you tell if they are being genuine or not if they do want to "reconcile?" I think that shame is good for anyone to check themselves, like in this Schneider example, people probably shamed him enough to check himself, but people do way worse things, so the punishment should be different.

I think something that can make public shaming bad is when people begin to go into their personal lives, messaging their jobs, family, and more. Doxxing is also bad when they share their addresses or any sensitive info that can seriously be unsafe for them. I think public shaming is only really good if the person did something extremely messed up and feel no remorse.

I think the consequences a rich and powerful person has is different than an average person. A powerful person can evade consequences better with money or resources or people they might know. Harassment can work in the present, but it also changes their public reputation. They might end up getting canceled or written off, which ruins their career and disenfranchises them. The goal is achieved.

It depends on what the person has done. If they have said something vs done something horrible, then the reaction could vary. I think for the most part online nowadays, people feel like it is a form of street justice to dogpile on someone the public thinks they did wrong. I think it is more about the people feeling like they're doing something impactful by working in a group to harass someone.

Absolutely, they have a duty to protect their users in case things get overboard. I am thinking about that woman with the racist tweet before going on her plane, although she was messed up for tweeting it, the situation could've turned really ugly really quickly because of the amount of people ready to attack her and find where she is. Yes she brought it upon herself, but there are situations like that that can happen without racist tweets, people can gan up on a person for any reason at any time and it can be unsafe.

I have probably participated in crowdsourcing at some point. Maybe like fundraising on the internet, or commenting something along with others to achieve some goal. I think that collective input into something can be a fun use of online communities and bring people together despite distance, however I do see drawbacks on how it can overload the system and overwhelm people.

Yes, I have reported someone for impersonating someone I know. If you let them, people can impersonate others and do weird things with it, like scam people. I think that social media not tolerating this really curbs that kind of scamming. For hate speech, I have probably when I was younger, but nowadays I don't see it much. I think in unmoderated spaces, everyone can be heard therefore no one can be heard.

I think that misinformation should be moderated, harassment or bullying. I think these are big problems that might undermine the users experience, and creates safeguards for them to enjoy the social media platform as they wish. This is beneficial for all users to make rational decisions.

I think social media platforms hae the responsibility of making sure that their reported accounts get looked into and taken care of. The ability to report for different reasons ex. Harassment, catfishing is great. I think them keeping up with these accounts and holding users accountable for behavior in this way will help with the toxicity in online spaces.

This is still happening on the internet to this day. There is a community of people that have this syndrome where they validate each other on their "illnesses" even though people irl do not believe them, they ofen choose illnesses that are hard to diagnose or they self diagnose themselves.

I think that social media platforms showing the users content its interested is a fair assumption of what the user wants, but it can create echochambers where the user is only seeing the same kind of content. I think it should also push content that the user might be interested, emphasis on the might, leaving more room for the users to decipher and decide instead of keeping them in tunnel vision.

I think that posting a gif and considering it 'Copying" is a stretch. I think that the internet is so vast and connected that it is very easy to find information on where the gif came from. Also, considering virality, people are not focused on citing sources with things like gifs or videos, the way that our social media platforms are set up, there is no need to put down or care about that information.

I think that this a fair point. If you are designing for a specific audience, example people with disabilities, it is very important to include them in your research and building of the product, because they have unique insight. I think designers and people with disabilities should work in tandem more often.

I think that ability based design is an interesting way to approach helping different uers. Things like dark mode and light mode allow the user to dictate their needs. The burden being put on the designers and programmers seem fair in this case because it is not solely on them, its also on the user to determine and use what fits them, so they have some responsibility as well.

Incentives could be them selling our information to other parties to continue selling more advertisements, or selling it just for money. This is non-consensual most of the time. I also believe that companies might overlook fortifying their security protocols because it might take too much time and money.

My serious concern are security breaches. I know that these companies collect a lot o data on us that I hope that some other greater force does not compromise that. Ex. Things like location< important identification numbers, and addresses.

I think that if data can be easily compromised, it is almost never pure. I think one people become too aware that a certain kind of data matters, they might change their behavior to affect the outcome. I feel like once data collection is more covert, and unnoticeable, (ex. Google) people don't really bother to influence it.

Google knows a lot about me apparently, it knows my sge, income, occupation, and more. I believe that when I see the ads I receive, google can pick out what kind of person I am based on my interactions and interests. I wouldn't say its creepy because I understand that my data is apart of the business transaction for using Google. Data is money nowadays.

It is interesting to learn about "Bad Faith" arguments. It is unfortunately a very common trolling tactic, that allows for trolls to be absolved from accountability. Its easy to say, "I was just trolling I don't actually believe what I said." Then how do you hold that person accountable? It is an easy excuse.

I think that not engaging with a troll is the best way, people say polarizing or offensive things for attention. Until it becomes harassment, then you should block and report them. If it is a lot of trolls and you are an average person, I think its worth disconnecting from social media for a while until it boils over because the internet is not reality, and you can leave or take a break if a lot of people are harassing you.

I think that companies should design these forms based on their audience demographics. If majority of users are from the UK, they should be on the top, same with USA, Canada, Mongolia, etc. And then the rest should be in alphabetical, this is a utilitarian approach.

It makes sense that different definitions lead to different results, elon might've defined it as human/not human whereas the CEO might view it as a collaboration of people and automation. I think it is important to specify definitions like bots because in the court of law they have real impact and a lot of money can be at stake.

I think social medias benefit from the bots because they create more engagement, they push out more tweets/comments so this helps their platform that is supported by people interacting with it. They also streamline the tediousness of posting/tweeting, it is automated so once you set it up that is all the work you'd have to do.

I think people's expectations of a bot compared to a normal user is that they might not take it as seriously because it is an automated thing. It is only there really to relay information that the programmer wanted to put on a specific schedule. If I saw an account that was a bot, I'd just think, "Oh its just a bot." Whereas with a normal user I would imagine a real person is behind the screen and consciously putting out the content they want to.

I think Rational selfishness is becoming more popular in today's culture because of the rise in individualism. I think society has progressed to where people don't need to rely on each other as much to survive, and social mobility is much more achievable. But this comes at the expense of others, if you do whatever benefits yourself at all times, that means you might not care about people and it can and will ruin your relationships. Selfishness is only positive for one's self, but as humans we need community and support so I don't think this is a sustainable mentality.

I think the information about her location and the time and date provided information to people about where she was - although she put the nail in the coffin by saying that she was going to Africa. Clues about her location allowed people to find where she was in real time which could be dangerous even though her tweet was morally wrong.