I'm kind of surprised Russian has a rather short list. considering how closely they competed with the USA during the cold war, I would assume that Russia would have a similar amount of development in the field of programming.

Definitely not. I was particularly annoyed that many things were presented as a dichotomy when plenty of nuanced responses were possible. For example, they gave the choice of either banning or keeping bots, no compromise. However, there's many types of bots and I'd rather filter them than choose either of the presented choices.

I found this quote to be of interest. "The norm violator's culpability increases with the extent to which she is responsible for the violation and not excused".

Many Nazis knew this very well and escaped across the globe. For some reason, South America was a popular place to go. Or maybe it was just a lot more difficult to identify them in South America causing Nazi refugees to remain undiscovered a long time. Its kind of odd to me that South America is somewhat popular to move to. In mid 1900's Japan, Brazil of all places was a common place to move to.

The fact that quote tweets are less convenient to find only adds to the anonymity of the internet, which is a leading cause for why online interactions can be so hostile. What I dont understand is why theres even a distinction between these and comments. The emphasis on heated, viral discussion feels like its by design!

Part of this is because of how much is up for interpretation online. It may be ambiguous in the absence of body language whether harassment was the intention.

The study "The Effects of AI-based Credibility Indicators on the Detection and Spread of Misinformation under Social Influence" claims that "We conclude by providing implications for better utilizing AI to fight misinformation." However this seems a bit contradictory since AI spreads a lot of misinformation itself, especially about topics its not heavily trained on.

Personally, as much as they are controversial, it is effective enough and on their own volition. The incentive of payment is unlikely to improve the quality of moderation in my opinion. Most of them do it out of pure passion, which is plenty of encouragement.

I hardly had time to read, it was impossible to consider every angle or argument in time.

I remember a lot of these being entities claiming to have authority when they actually don't. A lot of Youtubers I watched, especially related to video games, were hit with these strikes.

Theres definitely a few things to consider in terms of reasons for this, as well as criticisms of the decision. Comments can be constructive but often people with complaints may argue them in a hateful or at least unproductive way. They may be insightful, though that likely accounts for very few. They may be entertaining, but that falls under unproductive and is of no benefit to the news organization.

An interesting detail I found in a study they linked is that emotional contagions can be given in the absence of nonverbal cues. This may help us understand the significance of how social media having less ways of conveying body language.

I think that extreme cases, such as 4chan's incel community, should just be removed. If it's an obvious cycle of harm that only causes more problems, it's their responsibility to rectify that harm or at the very least prevent more of it.

I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before. To be a little critical of the idea, I feel like the main character tends to be a few people exchanging the spotlight every time. Especially now that Musk has proven he is willing to rig the system

I agree with this terminology a lot. Social media tends to make people feel fake already and the incentivization of fame only makes it worse. It's very annoying to go onto social media and need to differentiate ragebait, trolls and people being genuine.

At what point can we consider this stalking? I would consider this violating my privacy for certain. Also, this information can absolutely be used for harm if other medical secrets and such are analyzed. Theres a reason for client confidentiality with your doctor, corporations need to respect that reason as well.

It's quite clear that he is in support of hate for the good of having more active users based on the tweet. I think this is a result of Egoism, for the sake of personal/corporate benefit he is willing to support unhealthy conversation.

"People with dichromacy tend to learn to use texture and shape clues and so may be able to penetrate camouflage that has been designed to deceive individuals with normal color vision." That's a pretty cool detail, I wonder if that's something people will train if they're becoming a sharpshooter or something like that.

This feels parallel to a common criticism I see applied to social media and other digital platforms. The criticism is that its made for white and/or rich and/or male people. In most cases, I don't think its intentional, but it is true that the least oppressed groups get catered to the most. This is relevant here because many things passively cater toward those who are not disabled the most.

This story is absolutely absurd. McAffee has excuse after excuse and contingency plan after contingency plan. He provides nothing about why he was in Belize to begin with. Reminds me of Alfred Inglethorp from Agatha Christie's The Mysterious affair at Styles, except Inglethorp had a very good reason to behave extremely suspicious. McAffee just sounds like hes in pure panic mode, but still has time for Vice to boost his ego? Again, its just absurd.

This has concerning implications for companies that want to bust unions. Additionally, the fact that this is a possibility only divides management and employees further and creates adversity.

I used to scroll this subreddit before it was popular (not that I agreed with the message) and its a pretty interesting case. Originally, the name was very literal and the members wanted to live without working at all or having some socialism-esque alternative. Now its mostly activism against greedy corporations and poor wages. It even had a schism after the subreddit's owner went on TV. Since the owner's opinions were more in line with the origins of the subreddit than current, the members were upset. That event lead to the creation of r/workreform. I find it interesting that this is similar to the users on Digg having a schism and switching over to Reddit.

I see cases of these pointed out online a surprising amount, now I know they have a name! This example is also hilarious and I cant help but wonder if the candles one is valid at least to some degree.

Theres a detail in the source I'm surprised was not mentioned earlier. Pasta was uncommon in Britain when this aired, so it was very effective as misinformation, leading people to believe it really grew on trees in alarming amounts.

This topic certainly has interesting layers to it. Maybe the person stirring the pot doesn't necessarily intend to but has a natural inclination to play devil's advocate. I feel like I've done that a couple times for the sake of an interesting exchange despite only partly believing what I wrote.

I think Trey's tweet is quite correct, however brand tweets became such a phenomenon that they were likely well-known by the CEOs as well. Duolingo especially capitalized on it, I'd be shocked if their CEO was oblivious to it.

I think that even if the changes do not come from another person, those changes can actually affect your authentic self. For example, if someone is raised in a religious household and is consequentially religious themselves, then it is authentically them being religious. I think this is analogous to smaller changes that occur online. Perhaps these changes are just means by which we represent our authentic self.

I found point to be an interesting detail: "Over time, users of a personal social network build more connections and develop a history of posts and shared experiences, which they cannot easily transfer to another personal social networking provider". I wonder how often social media companies will deliberately make it difficult to transition for the sake of user retention.

Is this the origin of what we know of as threads today? (not the social media site, but rather the feature.) If so, this is a pretty cool detail

If you accept that all models are wrong, then what you must realize is there are terribly wrong models and not-so wrong models. We have to use our judgement to decide what category a model falls under.

Most of the data we see on the surface is provided by the users. Such as videos, profile pictures, what they captioned with, etc. Most data collected automatically isn't shown, such as your scrolling patterns.

This source cites a research study that believes most hate about the film online was made by politically motivated accounts, many of which are bots. They state the likely purpose is to make American society more dysfunctional by creating a heated topic almost artificially.

bots lead to more discussion on the platform, even if the discussion isn't necessarily healthy. More discussion leads to engagement which is how the platform evolves and makes money.

I'd like to add another perspective to nihilism. I think a very healthy interpretation of the idea that "nothing matters" is that you could then do whatever you want. Even if it makes no difference in the end, you can enjoy the human experience as much as you want.

The twitter users were motivated by not only the tone-deaf tweet, but also the collective outrage. Since the post went viral in such a short time, discussion must have been very active and unanimously in favor of delivering consequences to Justine. This environment was perfect for people to spontaneously cooperate on this idea.