I think there are a handful of incentives that social media companies have to protect privacy. If a company offers good privacy to its users, they will respect the company more and are more likely to use it. Also if the company protects privacy there is less chance of them having to pay fines for violating people's privacy.

My biggest concern regarding privacy on social media and the internet in general is when people's actions shift from offline to online. This is when people's actions on the internet and in real life get muddied and it becomes really dangerous and difficult to prosecute.

I think that it is fair for companies to seek out data regarding general audiences and not specific individuals since this will help them make better products. However, I would never say that they should specifically seek out any specific data.

I think that there is plenty of information that could be found through data mining that shouldn't be sought out by companies. For example people's personal information should never be available to companies without each person's explicit consent to having their data stored by a company.

All though these activities are trolling-adjacent I think there something special about truly trolling somebody on the internet. The fact that they don't know a thing about you and there's nothing about it is the cherry on top, which can never be recreated offline.

I think that this statement is sort of inaccurate. Although, stereotypes can be true they are OFTEN outdated or simply untrue. For every partly true stereotype, there is one that is completely false. Stereotypes are not always a legitimate pattern ad may be directly caused by racism.

I think that context collapse is a sign of inauthenticity. Since you maintain different personalities between different people you are not being authentic to your true personality. However, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing since often you have to modify your personality for reasons beyond your control.

Although I think anonymity can in some cases encourage authentic behavior, I think that mostly anonymity encourages inauthentic behavior. Since people have no consequences tied to their actions when they are anonymous, people are much freer to troll or say absolutely anything, thus there is no incentive to be authentically motivated.

This is one reason I have found that has pushed me away from libertarian ideas. Oftentimes, I agree with the sentiment of a group but the members who support that group reflect much more on the group than the actual principles and thus when people like white-supremacists are your colleagues you know you are on the wrong side.

I think that this is sort of an impossible problem, since there will always have to be some type of restrictions to restrict criminal activity. However, as a result there is now a sort of "hierarchy" of sites where each one has more and more freedom while teeming with more extremist ideas at every level. There is no true balance of freedom among these sites.

I think that any sort of contribution that users make to the platform that is visible to other users should be at least one or two steps away. This is important because it is a HUGE deterrent for bots and malicious content if their actions are not immediately reflected on the platform and this would reduce TOS-breaking activity on the platform.

I would never allow users to alter someone else's profile including removing any of their followers or posts since that would defeat the point of a social media. Additionally I think that not even the company that runs a social media should be able to do that since it restricts the freedom of the users of the platform.

I would use a class to store an address since there are many different properties for an address that could all be fields for the class. Using a simple string would make it difficult to retrieve different fields of the address.

I would use a double to store age since it is easier to track when the age should be changed if it is stored as a decimal. Also age is always a number so there is no point in using a String or non-number data type.

I think it is ultimately impossible to divide the responsbility for creating problems between individuals. Specifically it is impossible to create a "catch-all" rule or law for this since the situation for each program is unique and thus a rule cannot accurately access the ethics of every situation.

I think social media platforms allow bots to operate because they are another avenue for content. Any type of content that could be determined to be interesting by a platform's users is potentially profitable for the company.

I think the cyclic nature of this innovation is fascinating. Originally we prized the humans that could solve equations as if they were some type of machine, but now the most cutting edge software tries to replicate a human, a reversal of the original idea...

I think this is a very unique idea that is often not considered in any other ethical frameworks. This challenges the idea of Anthropocentrism, the idea that humans are separate and superior to nature. I always found that idea perplexing since it is impossible to deny that humans are integrally connected to nature and there is nothing that truly separates us from those that we deem beasts.