I have a quick question for this post. If AI can be used to weaken cost and avoid responsibility like McKinsey by companies, how should we balance out between technology development and social justice

If I am able to do that, I want to focus on users’ well-being and authentic content rather than ads income and optimization of users’ remaining time. Current original design of many social media platforms is letting people continue to scroll and refresh in order to magnify mood and dishonest information. My ideals is to promote health socialization and encourage rational discussion in the condition of gaining profit for the platforms

This article is pretty insteresting since it talks about whether public humiliation can be justified ethically. The author also points out that if public humiliation can be reasonably justified according to the protection of society instead of simple revenge. And, this makes me start to think that there are many public judgment online is part of justified humiliation? If we cannot balance out the systems, there may be many public tyranny

I agree with Hanna Arendt's point that some crimes is called crimes against humanity because they are exceed the range of rules and human morals. In some cases, only judicial punishment and public humiliation seems not enough to respond to the hurt. So, I think we have to admit some unpaired behavoirs are the red line of justice.

After reading this article, I feel really shocked and angry since Roni has been cyberstalking for so many years since she was a little kid. Even though she tried to switch social platforms and even called the police, the harassment never stopped. And, this makes me start to think if the platform can really take the responsibility of the problem like this case since they focus on more group argument or short-term conflict. So, I think social platform needs to provide more comprehensive protection to give their users enough sense of security

In my perspective, crowd harassment is never justified since if people start to think the way that as if their aim is justice they can anyway they want, this will become another form of oppression even though the main targets are considered bad people. This happens on the internet with fast spreading and high anonymity, and this may cause justice to go bad. Moreover, the voice of justice will finally turn into cyber bully causing severe problems like suicide.

What makes me suprised the most is that the spread of falsehoods is ususally not caused by those malicious people or AI, instead most of the time it is those regular users who spread those info unwittingly. And, this article points out that the spread of falsehoods is the process of collboration. Since many users continue to recreate and process those fake info unintentionly, this makes those info more credible and impactful.

Although the ad hoc corwdsourcing is well-intentioned, it is still possible to bring severe harm to other people. Reddit users mistakenly belive a missing college student as the suspect, and this well-intentioned behavoir brings a huge pain to this innocent family. And, this makes me realize that a bunch of strangers sticking together. Even though their intention is to help, it is still possible to bring cyberbullying in the condition of no evidence. And, I start to believe that the technology itself is neutral, and it is important to see how people to use it.

According to Roberts’ research and interview, we are able to know how these moderators struggle with economic pressure, time limit and extreme traumatic content. This work is never easy tap work, instead it needs to endure the risk of psychological trauma. I get really shocked and sad when I am reading this article. When we browse social media, we think it is right thing that these content should be clean and safe. However, indeed, there are people back there, who are enduring the things we cannot see silently.

In order to save costs, many social media companies decide to outsource moderation work, but they also ignore these moderators who have to face huge mental pressure from extreme content such as child abuse, violent videos, etc. And I think the emotional guidance activities like karaoke and drawing are not enough for them to release their mental stress. Rational shift and regular mental support from professional doctors should be added to the schedule. Even more, is there a possibility for AI to filter some extreme content?

I am pretty shocked by this artilce written by Robinson Meyer. This experiement reveals that Facebook intentionally changes the content of what they want their users to look at in order to observe their emotional reflection without letting their users know. The way of emotional control although has the the explore meaning in the area of academia, without letting users know should lead a severe controversy. And, this also makes me realize that social media platform is no longer just an intermediary of information but also they can actively create an emotional environment for their users as well

After reading the portion of doomscrolling, I feel so connected. Especially, during 2020, the pandemic was in the worst period. Every day, before I slept, I browsed twitter and news wesibte for one to two hours. Alhtough most of the content was about negative information such as increased number of confirmed cases and social conflict. And, even though I knew these contents could make me more anxious and hard to sleep, but I just could not stop. In my opinion, I would rather know the worst case than know nothing about what the world is happening. And, this also makes me think whether the social media platform should take some responsibility of mental health

Zack Wittaker, in the article on TechCrunch, points out how Facebook offers phone numbers of their users for advertising targeting and individual information search functions for 2FA, and users are not able to quit this setting, which causes users to worry about their privacy and the transparency of their data. And this really makes me start to think about how users are able to control their data in the current society.

After reading these posts, I started to seriously think about the difference between intention and impact. Although these platforms do not want to spread misleading information or incite violence intentionally, their impacts do exist and indeed cause some serious problems. I think social media should not only take responsibility for their intention but also the result caused by their design. Also, this makes me start to think if the surviving essence of those platforms is the participation of users and benefits from ads, they can be able to choose the right choice between commercial benefits and ethical responsibility.

I was particularly struck by Dr. Cynthia Bennett's observation that when people with disabilities are involved in design, they are often marginalized and not even treated as real designers.This made me think that the issue of diversity in technology is not just about “who it serves” but also about “who has the leading voice”. A truly inclusive technology system doesn't just treat its diverse users as “objects to be taken care of, but involves them in making decisions, creating, and defining standards. My question is: What actual platforms or organizations are out there that actually include people with disabilities or minorities in their role as designers, not just as test subjects?

I was particularly struck by Dr. Cynthia Bennett's observation that when people with disabilities are involved in design, they are often marginalized and not even treated as real designers.This made me think that the issue of diversity in technology is not just about who it serves but also about who has the leading voice. A truly inclusive technology system doesn't just treat its diverse users as objects to be taken care of, but involves them in making decisions, creating, and defining standards. My question is: What actual platforms or organizations are out there that actually include people with disabilities or minorities in their role as designers, not just as test subjects?

Reuters’s article mentions that Facebook not only collects users’ data but also collects information of non-registered users through techniques such as cookies. This detail makes me really surprised because, in general, a person who does not register or use some server should not have tracked or collected data. However, the reality is that, although you do not have a Facebook account, if you browse any website containing the button of likes or shares, Facebook will be able to track you by implanting tracking cookies in those browsers. And this makes me think of a very serious problem: in the current environment of the internet, choosing not to join becomes impossible. Even though you never actively use any platform, they are still able to collect your information implicitly. This situation dramatically weakens the control of privacy protection.

In my perspective, this behavior compared to the traditional hacker’s attack is more stealthy and disquieting since users do not even provide any relevant information, but that information is inferred by the platforms’ algorithm unconsciously. For example, Facebook is based on your friends, your contacts, and even your interacting posts to build up your shadow profile automatically even if you never provide any information to Facebook. This makes me feel that although I am already very careful to protect my own privacy, I cannot avoid the action of collecting data indirectly. This feels very unstable since privacy is never a problem of self-control, and people around me can also affect my exposure to privacy.

We often talk about the “era of big data” as if we can understand everything with data, but if the data itself is wrong, biased, or even maliciously manipulated, does it make sense to draw conclusions based on that data? This makes me question how much of the data analysis I usually see.

I think this situation has a close relationship to the content of “Trolling” in this chapter, especially when we judge whether a destructive act has moral value or not. When Jaboukie imitate how FBI snears at MLK being assassinated, this can be seen as an ironic disruption of having poltical intentions, which trying to remind the public not to forget the roles of FBI in the past history. And, personally, this kind of trolling with moral motivation is acceptable in some ethical framework.

Perviously, I think internet trollings are just too boring, but I never realize that there is a group of people who do not really care whether something is true or not as philsophy to attact other people. Apparently, they refuse any rules, but, in fact, they do protect the privilege for some group of people, such as gender and race making me realize that the meaning of standing for nothing is the exitence of severe unfairness. At the same time, how can we quickly distinguish between justicial and bad disruption.

This artilce talks about how the trans use the idea of anomity from the twitter to truely express themselves and obtain a kind of freedom from protection. The artilce points out that many trans people cannot public their identity and always face to violence and discrimination. However, anomity gives them the chance to express their true hear which breaks the traditional thought that anomity equals the idea of fakeness

I think the point which anonymity can both encourage inauthentic behavior and authentic behavior is very impressive. I especially agree with how anonymity promote people to better express themselves. I have found the similar situations from many online group chat. For example, some people can be brought up tje courage to talk about their mental problem, and this process is not their way of hiding themselves, but a chance to speak to their heart from a safe place. However, sometimes, anoymity can be a shield for the evilness. And, this makes me start to think about if this is the problem from anoymity itself, or it is the problem from the desgn of the platform. Moreover, should the platform be responsible for the use of anonymoity

Julia has pointed out many practical examples revealing potential problems of floating points. For example, she mentions that when she uses 32-bit floating numbers to represent odometer to read, as values increase, the gaps between each floating number increase, causing to accumulate decimals, the proccess of reading will stop, and the actual distance can be reflected incorrectly.

In math model, we often use formulas, models, and variables to represent various complicated stuffs in reality. For example, we can use a function to describe a population growth or use a matrix to represent a transportation network. However, we all know that all these models are used for abstract expression in reality. At here, the article mentions that 2 + 2 = 4 only works when all four units are identical, but, in reality, each unit has its own difference just like apples which have different sizes. So, we need to always have a crtical thinking and humble when we use these models and data. After reading this chapter, I have a question, in our daily lives, can we fully rely on data to make decisions or we have to leave some space for non-data decision since if all the data try to simplified reality

I think this passage deeply reveal the environment of the "click farms", which try to control the data of likes, comments, and forwards through recruiting abundant workers with low salary or applying automatic equipment to imitate users to interact. The most impression from the article is that the passage describes that some of the factories set up many phones in rows for remote control. And, this makes the intereaction on the internet even more untrustful.

This metaphor makes me remind some of the arguments and posts which really let me consider those persecptives seriously, even impact my thought. However, afterward, my friends told me that that this was a bot account. And, this experience really makes me distrust the authenticity of information that we found online, and I realize that people like me are really easy to be controlled by those automatic program. Also, I find an interesting question which is when a bot try to spread fake information or incite any hate speech, who will take the responsibility for this?