It's interesting how everyone handles social media, because we often stay too inside our bubbles and don't want to hurt other people's feelings. For things like ICE, we should stand up and lock in arm to arm.

I really like how important mental health is in this society. It's often underestimated on social media; mental health doesn't get that much love because people don't prioritize it, but it's important for everyone to know a little bit about it as this world is mostly on technology.

There should be some rules of privacy that many folks nowadays should be very considerate of what they post, and not shame people. Folks shouldn't be targeting other people's information regarding this, because who knows how someone might feel after an incident.

Jimmy Kimmel’s annual Halloween candy prank may be framed as lighthearted entertainment. Still, it normalizes the public humiliation of children by turning their genuine distress into viral content for mass amusement. When parents participate and share these moments online, it raises deeper ethical concerns about consent, digital footprints, and whether fleeting laughs are worth compromising)

I see a lot of dogpiling of people we hate, I mean, I've seen the chanting, after a relationship, and boy, it doesn't feel good when one is the target. I've had this experience with someone from high school, and we don't understand how much this can hurt someone when they find out, especially with modern technology today. I could feel how terrible it is when someone gets dogpiled; it's like "Why is everyone doing this to me?"

I see this all the time. This is why people use blocking and create private accounts: they don't want anyone to hack into their accounts or see how they feel. Death threats/rape threats are not just “drama” online, they’re serious forms of harassment that can have real emotional and legal consequences.

The case of Justine Sacco shows how social media crowdsourcing can quickly turn into harassment, as users collaborated in real time to track her flight and monitor her return. Twitter enabled people to pool gather info, and even capture and circulate a photo of her the moment she turned her phone back on.

Wikipedia is an example of a crowdsourcing platform because its content is created and edited by volunteers rather than a centralized editorial staff. Anyone can click “edit” on most pages and contribute, and even powerful institutions do not receive special privileges, highlighting how authority on the platform is meant to come from collective oversight rather than formal status.

With these moderations, social media has become safer. I do not block people, but when they offend me or do something bad, I'll block them. I'm glad that nowadays we have social media moderation because it prevents people from getting their feelings hurt. When people feel safer and more comfortable, they are more likely to continue using the platform. This shows why companies are incentivized to provide moderation tools; it protects users and helps retain them.

User safety is a major concern for social media platforms. When harassment, trolling, or unsafe political content spreads, users may feel uncomfortable and leave the platform. Because of this, companies have a right to moderate harmful content to maintain trust and keep users engaged.

Larger efforts to determine emotions or mental health through social media or devices like the iPhone or Apple Watch have produced iffy results, and any claims of reliably detecting emotions are probably false. This is interesting because people today are trying to assess mental health online, but social media can affect moods in ways that are misleading, so we can’t assume everything we see is accurate.

I have noticed this a lot in movies in film as literature class I took in high school, this stuff is taken seriously, I have seen this before on Instagram, where someone pretended to have cancer, and I thought "They shouldn't be doing this, this could legally get them in trouble." I don't know why this is growing, people need to realize that this is indeed asking for money, which should stop at all costs because people should have a sense of intelligence that this is not right ethically.

At times, algorithms can be worrisome because they often place people into groups that reinforce beliefs, limiting exposure to differing perspectives. This filtering can be dangerous, as people might trust content or people without realizing how biased recommendations get.

Social media algorithms are interesting because most users don’t realize how much their online behavior is tracked and analyzed. While the exact workings are secret, it’s clear these systems are designed to influence what we see and how we interact in subtle, complex ways.

When designers default to a narrow idea of the average user, their work can unintentionally exclude people whose experiences differ. That exclusion isn’t limited to disability, it shows how design choices quietly decide who gets to participate easily and who doesn’t.

Ability only matters in relation to the environment: tetrachromats may see more, but because the world isn’t built for that perception, it has little value. What we call a disability often reflects society norms, not an objective lack of ability.

Hacking can be very dangerous because many people reuse passwords or create predictable patterns that attackers can exploit. When hackers discover one password, they can use it across multiple sites, increasing the risk of data loss and unauthorized access.

This part confirms my thinking on password sharing is not good because the privacy that goes into it is not good. We keep information like phone passwords private to prevent others from stealing our identities or gaining unauthorized access to our accounts or other information. Sharing passwords removes that privacy and increases the risk of theft, financial loss, and misuse of personal information.

I have noticed a lot of these on social media they like to ask you about these kinds of things, and we have to be careful because AI nowadays gives old ideas a new sense of accuracy, even though the science behind them is still wrong. It also shows how technology can reinforce bias instead of eliminating it if it’s not used

This is interesting because people often share this data, which gives platforms detailed insight into others' identities and behaviors. That information can be used to personalize experiences, but also raises privacy and data-use concerns.

What’s interesting here is how catfishing shows our natural behavior to trust social signals, showing that deception can manipulate emotions and behavior in the smallest ways. It also reveals that even the smallest of lies can have a big impact once they’re uncovered, because humans are so attuned to being misled

This part is interesting because being untrustworhy proves everyone that the material is fake, they have no way to be identified, the sources might not be credible either, which angers me when something like this happens in my feed. What’s interesting here is how deeply our sense of trust is tied to predictability and reliability, when a signal we rely on turns out to be deceptive, it not only surprises us but also triggers a strong emotional reaction.

There are many social media connection pathways out there that we don’t always perceive as dangerous, but they can be. For example, even one-way connections like following someone on Instagram or subscribing to a YouTube channel can expose personal information or allow strangers to influence our opinions without us realizing it.

I am very shocked because I didn't know people were using email back in the day. People in the 1960s-1970s were using hand-written letters to communicate to one another, and I didn't really know and I'm interested in how the email was so popular in the 1960s-1970s without a real laptop back in the day.

It’s interesting to see that data can be misleading sometimes, and that we have to be careful because no dataset is 100% accurate. Data can have missing values, errors, or biases, so when analyzing it, we often have to think deeper on whether what we’re seeing is true or if it's because of a erroneous data set that's because of bias, missing data.

I never realized how powerful metadata can be. It’s interesting that it’s not just about the content of the tweets, but also about information like when and how we collected them. That extra layer can really change how we understand and analyze data. It can reveal what time someone does things, trends, and behavior that we don't see behind the scenes.

I think this is really interesting, because bots are not independent, they are written by real people, and I found this interesting, because it's incredible to see bots written by different people can mean different things. This helps explain why online content from bots can sometimes seem unpredictable or inconsistent.

This paragraph, I mean, it's very important that people know what bots do, they misconceptualize them, but in this day of ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, DuckAI. These bots though are actually interesting in a sense how that not all accounts called ‘bots’ are truly automated. I think this distinction is important because it changes how we understand online content, whether it’s influenced by algorithms or by campaigns.

I found this very interesting. At my high school, a long-time teacher who's been there for 25+ years, who's also the head football coach, Steve Valach, emphasizes the word "Ubuntu" at the kickoff assembly each year during the first week of school. When I heard about it for the first time nearly 4.5 years ago, he made it so memorable because it means "I am because we are." That is the key part about ubuntu, the connectedness it creates, the team aspect of it, it's harmonious as it says in the text because it's a unity feeling. In football when the game is really close, sometimes, I see a huddle of how a team is going to win a nail biting game, if the game is 28-27, "ubuntu" comes into mind because the offense needs to have receivers catching, good routing, special teams making it harder for the other team to score, defense stepping up to the plate, and when the clock goes to 0, it really has that feeling of "We won the game, everyone contributed." Which is, in my mind, that feeling of "Ubuntu." everyone pitched in, nobody did something where it hindered someone's capabilities, everyone was capable. This idea also connects to virtue ethics, because it emphasizes developing good character through cooperation, respect, and helping others succeed.

This quote here What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.’” I did this: I think by this, it's showing everyone that we should be treating others respectfully at all times, that we should always think twice. Everyone who's older will often say "Think twice." This applies here, think twice before posting, it's critical because we don't want to say something mean that normally we would not say to others, it creates that negative feeling, it does not feel good, and we would want to avoid that. The only way to do so is to be kind, respectful, and understand that respectful communication is a two way street. What one says has a direct impact on the other person, we humans don't know that, so I think it's time to wake up from this denial, and face the truth here, that what we say has a direct impact on others.

I'm kind of shocked about this, it's alarming how tweets spread because retweeting is kind of like a fungus that multiplies, once you repost, others do it too, and when people repost on Facebook or Instagram or X now, other people see it. This is the problem in today's world, we don't see the power of us retweeting, and it might not always be good, like what happened here, and that's what people often do not realize. Social media needs to do a better job with the repost, and people should consider not reposting anymore.