This is interesting when one considers the intentional disintegration built into many tech products, which promote waste and consumerism by unnecessarily breaking down over time, in tandem with marketing involving the supposed necessity of the latest update of a prior product, in order to ensure consumers are in constant need of new technology. Factors such as social media and digitization further the integral role these devices play in the everyday lives of many, their wastefulness contradicting the image of reusability and sustainability often associated with digitized versions of analog products (i.e. digital texts rather than paper ones, digital music, finances, etc.).

It is interesting to see how these forms of crowd-funding online are generally reserved for information databases and other educational sites. I am curious if such a system could be implemented into major social media sites such as Facebook/Twitter, and if such is even possible under the current economic system.

This contrast in group response to atrocity poses interesting questions regarding how the dominant ethical framework of a culture or society influences broader societal perspectives regarding punishment vs. rehabilitation. Within the context of social media shaming, it is arguable that individualistic beliefs regarding the nature of harm are the basis for the general culture surrounding these issues, causing individuals to turn towards specific instances rather than addressing broader patterns collectively.

This is an interesting facet of the issue of public shaming on the internet as it relates to other instances of schadenfreude proliferating in online spaces, such as the concept of cringe culture or other social media behaviors built off of negativity and group ostracizing. I am curious as to what extent these behaviors are catalyzed by the nature of social media or exist simply as reflections of innately human behavior that proliferate regardless.

Although the existence of these positions is important in the prevention of harmful content proliferating on a given platform, is raises ethical questions regarding the psychological impact this type of job may likely have on those who perform it. Repeated exposure to and examination of content deemed harmful may overtime become traumatizing to those whom moderate it, requiring a heightened sense of comfortability with the content in order to perform their job successfully.

This is interesting as it speaks to the role of advertising in regards to social media in its current magnitude and the financial power of corporations over the distribution of their content on these platforms. Large studious are therefore far more likely to have their reposted content efficiently removed at a fast rate than a smaller user with no corporate backing or affiliation.

To what extent do online platforms incentivize the proliferation of negative echo-chambers such as these? Due to the nature of social media algorithms, if one expresses interest in content pertaining to negative experiences or poor self image, particularly in relation to an aspect of their identity, it is easier to fall into negative behaviors of trying to validate these thoughts/feelings online. Although platforms may remove certain subcultures they find harmful online, to what extent does the nature of social media make this behavior inevitable?

This is interesting as it speaks to the ambiguous nature of popular belief regarding 'wellness' and similar indicators of health and wellbeing. Although digital detoxes and similar efforts to decrease one's time spent online are generally beneficial to one's health, their aimless nature renders them unable to impact one's larger dependence on devices.

This is an interesting framework through which to analyze the phenomenon of internet virality as it speaks to the subcultural or in-group facet of meme/viral content exchanges. It is particularly interesting to see how these different perspectives add nuance to the initial posts themselves, which may for instance be viewed as ironic in certain circles but shared in earnest elsewhere. It also speaks to the requirement of pre-conceived knowledge or the accumulation of such as memes circulate within certain communities, possessing layers only understood by the given in-group in which the content originates.

This use of terminology is interesting as it defines a 'meme' by its broader social evolution and interaction with the public at large. The evolution of a particularly piece of media or concept in this way is thus determined by group consensus, uniquely accessible through the wide reach of social media and the internet at large.

Although this nature of social media algorithms fosters community in a beneficial manner to users, the equally effective ability of this technology to proliferate hate groups and harmful rhetoric renders it ethically dubious. I am curious as to what extent algorithms have become intrinsic to the nature of social media itself, and although it existed prior to the introduction of algorithmically recommended content, I wonder if given they are theoretically deemed too socially dangerous to continue, if social media could exist without them given the way it currently functions.

This is an interesting reason for algorithm secrecy within social media sites given the phenomenon on political pipelines being algorithmically supported. I recall hearing of many far right agendas and content proliferating this way, and I am curious as to what extent this is due to the nature of algorithms generally or if social media companies are to blame for fostering these echo chambers.

This is interesting as different platforms may be innately more accessible by default, so the extent to which extra means of accessibility would have to be implemented for disabled users may alter between platforms. Different disabilities may require different alterations as well, which would have to be taken into consideration by programmers and designers when creating adaptations.

In regards to social media and other digital means of communication, I am curious as to which extent the cultural context from which these were created has impacted their accessibility. The extent to which disability and the multitude of ways such may hinder one's ability to use a given site or platform is considered in their creation may fluctuate depending on how prioritized these issues are.

Although this is an effective means of security right now, I am curious as to how this may be surpassed by hackers as technology progresses. Will these means of security be effective if one is able to bypass multiple accounts/devices?

This raises questions regarding which uses of data (pertaining to one's words or actions) are passable in the eyes of the law. In terms of privacy, there is a fine line between when surveillance is necessary for the safety of users and when such impedes upon one's right to privacy.

It is interesting to see these technologies utilized to promote societal change by those who do not generally control the means through which they are implemented towards the public. I am curious as to how these dynamics may influence the development of data programming moving forward, and if major socio-economic shifts would have to occur beyond the world of social media/tech in order for actions such as this to have tangible impact.

I've noticed a lot of these ideas having a resurgence in popular culture, particularly among younger/adolescent demographics, on social media. Although many express these behaviors with knowledge of the implications and ill intent, it is interesting and concerning how many who would not knowingly agree with the political implications lean into these visual judgements, and I am curious as to what extent algorithms contribute to the proliferation of these behaviors.

This idea of 'trolling' as a signifier of an in-group identity raises questions regarding the ethics of the action as it relates to socio-economic status. If a privileged group in society behaves in these way, it is arguably far more reprehensible than if an oppressed group behaved similarly as a means of protest due to the innate power one group may hold.

Although similar behaviors centered on the torment of others are seen throughout human history, I am curious as to what extent social media and the internet foster these inclinations by creating established spaces in which they are encouraged. It is also possible that these spaces exist tangentially as an oppositional response to social and political progress that generally condemns these unfiltered displays of one's malicious intent. By philosophizing these behaviors, users that openly engage with hateful rhetoric create a sense of community surrounding these ideas that validates their sense of animosity in a manner that is arguably unique to the internet age.

As social media become increasingly integral to the social lives and careers of the general public, it is arguable that this form of social media has become less popular amongst the average user. I am curious as to what extent this reflects a blurring line between the individual and their social media persona as such become increasingly integral.

This is an interesting sentiment as it is arguably intrinsic to the profitability social media possesses, especially within the last decade. The motivation to market oneself in order to profit from a social media presence appears unavoidable if one is to progress in this particular niche, which raises ethical concerns regarding what it is one chooses to promote and whether or not they can be held liable for such within the context of social media advertising.

The proliferation of social media sites campaigning for their interpretation of free-speech, that which centers upon the allowance of unfiltered extremist views and hate-mongering generally coincides with social and political shifts reflecting similar notions in certain demographics of the public. The rise in far-right political ideologies in popular culture may to a certain extent be credited to their spread through sites such as this.

I am curious as to how this entry-oriented development in social media has impacted the relation of users to personal information and the notion of an audience through the internet. Since this implementation, how has the line between internalized thoughts/ideas/opinions and externalized ones been blurred?

I find notion of intentionality and awareness when interacting with social media platforms interesting as in theory it would heighten the social responsibility of platform users. Given the personalized manner of social media algorithms and economic incentive of tech companies, however, I wonder if this ethical framework would be able to truly proliferate in practice. I am also curious as to what extent the notion of 'pernicious ignorance' in the context of social media is shaped by the social and political climate of the world surrounding it.

I am interested in the way this restraint may possess innate biases regarding geographical disputes. This particular restraint reminds me of the way digital maps provided by Google and comparable corporations have the possibility to present politicized visual depictions of the world, particularly during times of conflict.

Due to its reflection of human language, to what extent may the structure of Psuedocode's ability to be easily understood fluctuate amongst written languages? I am curious regarding the lingual context of its development may have influenced its structure, or if so is more so tailored towards computer binaries.

The allowance/presence of bots on social media platforms presents a challenging moral predicament that may greatly fluctuate depending on one's general ethical framework or political perspective. Since social media companies profit from the rapidly increased interaction bots provide, there is little incentive for companies to undermine their proliferation regardless of intention. Due to the generally apolitical state of a bot's rudimentary structure, deciding how to approach their application to pertinent social and political issues reveals a blurred lines between the seemingly neutral nature of the bots themselves and the politically charged actions of those who may utilize them.

I believe that the focus on gendered socialization the Care Ethics framework presents is useful when analyzing the impact of gendered thinking on societal understanding of morality, especially when such historically centers the perspective of men. I disagree with certain elements of this framework pertaining to the notion of 'female-coded' spaces and the proposition that there is an innate difference in ideological perspective on the basis of gender, therefore implying that women are more inclined towards familial relations rather than broader societal interactions.