Upwork: A site that lets people find and contract work with freelancers (generally larger and more specialized tasks than Amazon Mechanical Tu
Upwork is an online marketplace where businesses and individuals can hire freelancers for a wide range of professional services. It typically focuses on larger, more specialized projects compared to microtask platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk.
Wikipedia: Is an online encyclopedia whose content is crowdsourced. Anyone can contribute, just go to an unlocked Wikipedia page and press the edit button. Institutions don’t get special permissions (e.g., it was a scandal when US congressional staff edited Wikipedia pages), and the expectation that editors do not have outside institutional support is intended to encourage more people to contribute.
Wikipedia’s open, crowdsourced model makes knowledge accessible and constantly evolving, allowing anyone to contribute and improve content. However, this openness also requires strong community oversight to maintain neutrality and prevent conflicts of interest.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is crowdsourced by volunteer editors. You can go right now and change a Wikipedia page’s content if you want (as long as the page isn’t locked)! You can edit anonymously, or you can create an account. The Wikipedia community gives some editors administrator access, so they can perform more moderation tasks like blocking users or locking pages. Editors and administrators are generally not, paid, though they can be paid by other groups if they disclose and fill out forms
I think it's unfortunate how wikipedia started with a really good intent and output of information and has now become a platform of misinformation. However I believe if they can figure out some ways to restrict random input of information it can be more credibly succesful
Facebook uses hired moderators to handle content moderation on the platform at large (though Facebook groups are moderated by users). When users (or computer programs) flag content, the hired moderators will look at it and decide what to do.
I wonder if this would be considered a disrespect or invasion on privacy/freedom of speech. However even if it is it probably makes sense because sometimes social media can become a very harmful place
One of the ways social media can be beneficial to mental health is in finding community (at least if it is a healthy one, and not toxic like in the last section). For example, if you are bullied at school (and by classmates on some social media platform), you might find a different online community online that supports you. Or take the example of Professor Casey Fiesler finding a community that shared her interests (see also her article):
I think the people have forgotten what social media was created for - a means to connect people around the world. Forgetting this core idea is probably what has made social media so harmful as now it is used for almost every aspect of our life except the simplicity of connecting with someone.
“If [social media] was just bad, I’d just tell all the kids to throw their phone in the ocean, and it’d be really easy. The problem is it - we are hyper-connected, and we’re lonely. We’re overstimulated, and we’re numb. We’re expressing our self, and we’re objectifying ourselves. So I think it just sort of widens and deepens the experiences of what kids are going through.
I think this really highlights the difficulty we're facing with social media these days as while we all know the toxic aspects of it we cannot get it our of lives as in truth it's not as toxic if used in moderation. However due to it's addictive nature most people cannot use it in moderation and therefore it only adds harm to people's life.
This way of managing disabilities puts the burden fully on disabled people to manage their disability in a world that was not designed for them, trying to fit in with “normal” people.
This highlights such an important concept with how certain framing or wording can wire your perception about a specific topic or yourself. This way we could simply consider as something that just needs to be taken care instead of a weakness
In some cases we might want a social media company to be able to see our “private” messages, such as if someone was sending us death threats. We might want to report that user to the social media company for a ban, or to law enforcement (though many people have found law enforcement to be not helpful), and we want to open access to those “private” messages to prove that they were sent.
Private messaging creates’ an expectation of privacy, but there are situations where limited access is necessary to protect users from threats or harassment. The challenge is designing systems that allow reporting and evidence sharing in harmful situations without turning routine private communication into something routinely monitored.
One of the main goals of social media sites is to increase the time users are spending on their social media sites. The more time users spend, the more money the site can get from ads, and also the more power and influence those social media sites have over those users. So social media sites use the data they collect to try and figure out what keeps people using their site, and what can they do to convince those users they need to open it again later.
This comment points to how modern social media platforms operate within an attention economy, where user time and engagement are the primary resources being monetized. By analyzing user behavior data and what people click, watch, like, or share: platforms can tailor content and notifications to keep users returning more often and staying longer.
By looking at enough data in enough different ways, you can find evidence for pretty much any conclusion you want. This is because sometimes different pieces of data line up coincidentally (coincidences happen), and if you try enough combinations, you can find the coincidence that lines up with your conclusion.
This observation highlights a real issue in data analysis known as data dredging or p-hacking: when people search through large amounts of data without a clear hypothesis, they can often find patterns that look meaningful but are actually just coincidences.
By looking at enough data in enough different ways, you can find evidence for pretty much any conclusion you want. This is because sometimes different pieces of data line up coincidentally (coincidences happen), and if you try enough combinations, you can find the coincidence that lines up with your conclusion.
This observation highlights a real issue in data analysis known as data dredging or p-hacking: when people search through large amounts of data without a clear hypothesis, they can often find patterns that look meaningful but are actually just coincidences.
Film Crit Hulk goes on to say that the “don’t feed the trolls” advice puts the burden on victims of abuse to stop being abused, giving all the power to trolls. Instead, Film Crit Hulk suggests giving power to the victims and using “skilled moderation and the willingness to kick people off platforms for violating rules about abuse”
This is so important because as no one thinks twice before posting something negative online as its often a split second thought. This can't even be regulated though as that would be a regulation on freedom of speech so one would ask how to keep social media a positive space.
Inauthentic behavior is when the reality doesn’t match what is being presented. Inauthenticity has, of course, existed throughout human history, from Ea-nasir complaining in 1750 BCE that the copper he ordered was not the high quality he had been promised, to 1917 CE in England when Arthur Conan Doyle (the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories) was fooled by photographs that appeared to be of a child next to fairies.
This probably is the biggest, most alarming issue to do with social media. We live in world now where theres almost two persona's, one that we present on social media and one for real life creating a constant, daily disconnect.
Authenticity in connection requires honesty about who we are and what we’re doing; it also requires that there be some sort of reality to the connection that is supposedly being made between parties. Authentic connections frequently place high value on a sense of proximity and intimacy. Someone who pretends to be your friend, but does not spend time with you (proximity) or does not open themselves up to trusting mutual interdependence (intimacy) is offering one kind of connection (being an acquaintance) under the guise of a different kind of connection (friendship).
I really like how this connects authenticity to honesty and trust as people generally view authenticity as just being as much as yourself as possible. However for this to be possible you have to feel a certain level of trust which is often forgotten when we expect someone or something to be authentic
Facebook was launched in 2004 and soon put most of its competitors out of business, while YouTube, launched in 2005 became a different sort of social networking site built around video.
To me it's really sad yet interesting to see how much social media has evolved as it started with very good intent: the notion of connecting people across the world. However now it has it become one of the biggest part's of our world with various aspects and branches.
Thus, when designers of social media systems make decisions about how data will be saved and what constraints will be put on the data, they are making decisions about who will get a better experience. Based on these decisions, some people will fit naturally into the data system, while others will have to put in extra work to make themselves fit, and others will have to modify themselves or misrepresent themselves to fit into the system.
This shows how unconscious biases can be so harmful in terms of data. When a system is being built to fit specific data moldings and algorithms used for those moldings are biased or not designed to be thoughtful about all types of people, thats when data storing can be seen as harmful
One classic example is the tendency to overlook the interests of children and/or people abroad when we post about travels, especially when fundraising for ‘charity tourism’. One could go abroad, and take a picture of a cute kid running through a field, or a selfie with kids one had traveled to help out. I
To me this example shows how much in the name of good causes people can forget that there are many ways we can forget that social media is very widespread and while there are many people with good intentions, there are just as many people with bad intentions. It also breaches many ideas of consent as because these kids are young they don't have a say in whether they can be posted or not.
Note that sometimes people use “bots” to mean inauthentically run accounts, such as those run by actual humans, but are paid to post things like advertisements or political content. We will not consider those to be bots, since they aren’t run by a computer. Though we might consider these to be run by “human computers” who are following the instructions given to them, such as in a click farm:
I feel like this could be very problematic as in our current society theres already a lot of trouble with differentiating between bots and ai etc. and if people are also acting as bots then no one will be able to understand whats real on social media and what isn't real.
I find it so interesting that while a bot is considered fully computerized it technically still has to be run by humans to get the programming and commands. This makes me question if we can even consider bots as fully run by computers, or if the execution of it is mainly run by computers.
I find it interesting that while most of these ideologies come from different parts of the world the core beliefs are rooted in acting in a certain way of morality. This could show that in regardless of where you are from the core beliefs will always remain similar
I think this highlights today's current issues with social media and ethics as technology is advancing at such a rapid level yet seems to be coming close each time to breaching ethical barriers. However even with this due to American society this is legal due to the notion of freedom of speech which is what holds our society together, which then leads to the question of how can we make technology safe and harmless without having to curb freedom of speech.