I think this is an interesting example of how things being viral, existed long before social media. Even without platforms like TikTok, people were still sharing messages with others and encouraging them to pass them along. It makes me think that social media did not necessarily create viral behavior, but instead made it much easier and faster for information to reach larger audiences, considering the communication, convenience, and ease to create, and view something.

I think these three conditions are interesting because they can also explain why certain things become viral. People replicate work by reposting or sharing it, and this is how variations happen as someone adds their own twist or changes the original. It makes me think about how going viral isn't always intentional. Sometimes a small change or adding an influence relative to your or seeing something else, is what makes something catch on with a much larger audience.

I think that the content people are exposed to can shape how they understand different perspectives and current events. While social media algorithms often get blamed for the impacts and effects it has (in which it does), this article makes me think about how other sources of media, like cable news, can influence what information people repeatedly consume as well. It raises the question of whether the issue is necessarily the platform itself or the way information is selected, prioritized, and presented to audiences. I think even comparing with social media you are not even be able to converse or hear opinions or thoughts from a different viewpoint when watching cable news.

I think Recommendation algorithm can be broad, the different things/have various uses depending on the situation. This makes me think about how much control recommendation algorithms have over what we see online. When discussing a chronological feed it makes the content/algorithm show it in order, while more complex algorithms decide what deserves our attention based on our activity and interests which can vary in different ways in what is even taken into account.

One thing that stood out to me in this reading was how information can be lost when images are shared without no context or descriptions. I think it should be prioritized when being able to look at an image and immediately understand its context, but that experience is not the same for everyone. Alt text is not just about describing what is physically in an image, but also communicating its meaning and the details that someone might otherwise may not be able to see. It made me think how this should be considered and ensured from when including while looking at an image.

I think this is why its so important to have a diverse group, in general, but more specifically in tech when creating anything or in a space that impacts a community or large group of people. Being able to reason and think from one person's perspective, who is completely opposite of you. Not only that there is an opportunity to learn, and its likely a higher chance of accurately ensuring products/ changes made are properly assessed, and encourages discussion towards correctness and thoughtfulness.

I think one of the biggest problems with misinformation is that people are more likely to believe something when they see others sharing it, even if nobody has checked whether it is true. This makes it difficult to correct false information because it can spread further than the correction itself. Because you may believe it is real if one is intepreting it as real.

I think this is important because even small mistakes or missing information in a dataset can affect the results and lead to wrong conclusions. It shows why we need to check our data carefully before using it. Especially because what we use from this dataset gives us other conclusions.

This shows how someone can pretend to be another person online. It highlights why authentication is important for checking people's identities and protecting ourselves from scams and fake account, and from a lot of things we do because that stuff identifies that and gives perspective on us.

I think when watching someone, o rinteracting with someone, we tend to sort of know more about them, expecting tis the truth so there is a bit of trust and sometimes a connection within that. Nobody wants to be tricked into believing someone is real when they are not that.

Its really interesting to see, and understand how web 2.0 has impacted the way the internet and social media is today. Its interaction, although it is not what it is today, still shows its impact.

I think both Web 1.0 and 2.0 are obviously the make up and evolution for the way the internet and social media is. But specifically these changes, in howe the web 2.0, was more interactive really changed the way we interact and utilize social media. The creations and effects of these interactive pages, and platforms change how people use social media in various ways.

Automation can be super fast, with how it accelerates and progresses your work. But while it can be helpful, it can also have negative effects, spreading misinformation, inaccurate information, ones interpretation, influencing an individuals opinion and I think in order for it to be sued carefully there has to be an ethical viewpoint of how this automation can be utilized and how it can impact others.

I think happiness and in this- utility is subjective. In addition, how do you measure utilitarianism considering it may vary depending on the individual? Even if this approach is good, it still considers most people, which shows that this does not consider groups that are easily overlooked or smaller groups whose decisions are not considered.

Its interesting how this topic raises, and brings awareness to the issue of engagement and how indiivduals, or groups of people, or organizations will go beyond the content of their work to get more discovery, more engagement. Its super important to realize we cannot trust and easily consume content on the internet. There is points and also benefits on the other end of the content.

I think this point is very interesting, in regards to like how there is rules for languages or types of. communication whether its verbally or via a computer program.

I think this is interesting as when being around groups of others your opinions may influence each other for better or worse. But I think there is more values in terms of diversity of thinking for one self, because over time you can learn from one another, as I think when being collectively with other people your thinking may be closer towards one another over time. Learning and understanding the way someone else thinks, and learning from that is very important in terms of how oyu may think of decisions and action, and others.

When considering ethics, I think it is beyond your perspective, or even thinking for others. It is considering and acknowledging that your peers, and others have different perspectives, different experiences which are perceived heavily different than you. So when you make an action or decision considering different people is very important in terms of ethics as it can impact them.

This in itself, this part in the text, I found it really powerful how the author connects personal experience with the larger idea that the people who have most affects on design choices have the lease influence. I also appreciated the reminder that design justice is not just about good intentions but about centering the people most affected by design decision. In addition, especially the idea that everyone is going off of their own lived experience, it makes me reflect on how inclusive design requires rethinking who gets to participate in shaping technology and systems that impact daily life and how we should have more perspective.

When thinking about designers perspectives and role this does not surprise me, however thinking from the users perspective it does as I always assumed user studies were the ultimate way to test a design, but considering what the author stated about them (at times) missing fundamental flaws which can change that perspective. It’s interesting how the author says that considering designers define the tasks, the results can’t show whether people would actually want to do those tasks in real life. It makes me realize how important it is to test a design’s real-world value, not just its usability from seeing if people would actually miss it if it were taken away.

When thinking about this specific section within the text, this paragraph about consistency and standards stood out to me because it shows how something as simple as consistency can completely shape the user experience. The example makes the point really clear, as when shortcuts and commands stay the same across applications, it saves users from constantly having to relearn basic actions. It also shows how thoughtful design is not always about adding new features, but about creating familiarity and predictability. That kind of consistency builds trust. When a user has familiarity with something that expectation of the user knowing and controlling understandably where they are and being able to direct where they want to head to is super important in terms of comfortability.

I think this is a really important approach prioritizing the perspective and opinion of humans inputs. I also think you can receive more insight and information through this approach, considering that you're not just considering the viewpoint of people affected or people who share their input as they face implications on these designs, but also bringing them along the process gives more than understanding, but perspective and opportunity to make change, to adhere to other individuals needs.