This source explains Einstein’s connection to the Manhattan Project, and I was surprised that even though Einstein is one of the most famous scientists, he wasn’t directly involved in building the atomic bomb. The article mentions that his letter to President Roosevelt helped start the project, but later he regretted how his work was used for war. I think this detail shows how science can be used in ways the creator never intended, which makes me think about responsibility in technology today as well.

My view on social media has changed in a few ways. I used to think of it mainly as a place to communicate, post photos, and stay updated on what friends are doing. Now I recognize how powerful it actually is not just for social life, but for shaping opinions, spreading trends, and even influencing politics. Learning more about algorithms and how content spreads made me more aware of how easily misinformation or other harmful behavior can grow online. But at the same time, it also makes my belief stronger that social media can be positive when used thoughtfully. It can bring people together, share information quickly, and give voices to groups that are often ignored. So now I see social media as something that has huge impact both good and bad, depending on how we use it.

When I looked up socialism in Merriam Webster, I noticed how clearly it explained the idea of shared ownership and public control of resources. It helped me understand that socialism isn’t just about government involvement, it’s about distributing power and resources more equally. This definition made me think about how different the system feels compared to capitalism, where individual ownership and profit are the main focus.

In the US, I definitely notice capitalism the most things like private healthcare, competition between companies, and people needing to pay for basic services show how profit drives a lot of decisions. But I also see elements of socialism in public schools, libraries, and government funded programs that aim to support everyone, not just those who can pay. (afford) It feels like the two systems overlap, and sometimes they work together, but other times they clash when access and fairness become issues.

The Wikipedia page on the sociological concept of “face” explains how people try to maintain a positive social image in front of others. (pretend to) What stood out to me is how deeply this idea connects to online behavior too. On social media, people are constantly managing their “face” by organizing posts, deleting things that seem embarrassing, or apologizing when something they say gets taken the wrong way. It made me realize that a lot of the pressure we feel online, like worrying about how others see us comes from this same idea of protecting our social image.

If Twitter had a retraction feature, I think the user should be able to choose whether to keep the original tweet visible with a retracted label or completely delete the content. It would also be helpful if the user could write a short explanation, like why they retracted it or what information was incorrect. When someone views a retracted tweet, I imagine it would look faded out with a note saying something like “The author has retracted this tweet,” instead of showing the full text. For retweets or quote tweets, I think they should also show the retraction label, so people won’t keep spreading the old message without knowing it was taken back. I’m not sure if there should be notifications, maybe only to people who already interacted with the tweet, so they know something changed.

In Roni Jacobson’s article “I’ve Had a Cyberstalker Since I Was 12”, she describes how online harassment followed her for years and years and how hard it was to get support from platforms or authorities. What stood out to me is how unprepared social media platforms were to handle long term, targeted harassment. It connects to the chapter because it shows how design choices, like weak reporting systems or slow responses can make harmful behavior spread even more. It made me realize that platforms have a responsibility not just to react, but to design systems that prevent this level of harm in the first place.

Sometimes people say or think because it feels more acceptable since rich people or person who has great influence can handle the negative comment. But for me, even then, it still feels wrong. Criticism is fine, and people with power should be held responsible, but harassment crosses a line. It becomes more about punishing someone instead of having a real conversation or mentioning the problem.

The Wikipedia page on the MeToo movement explains how a single hashtag turned into a massive crowdsourced effort to call out sexual harassment and assault. What stood out to me is how the movement showed the power of collective voices online. Once people saw others sharing their experiences, it encouraged even more people to come forward. It connects to this chapter’s idea of crowdsourcing because the impact came from large amount of individuals contributing their own stories, creating a larger cultural shift that wouldn’t have been possible alone.

I feel like social media companies should take some responsibility, especially when crowd actions cause harm, like harassment, misinformation, or targeted attacks. They created the environment, so they should make sure it doesn’t goes farther to harmful behavior. At the same time, they can’t control every individual, but they can control them by rules, the design, and the tools that possible shape a behavior.

This Reuters article by Maggie Fick and Paresh Dave discusses the challenges Facebook faces in moderating content across its platform due to the sheer number of languages used by its global users. It highlights that automated systems often fail to detect harmful posts in less common languages, and human moderators cannot cover all languages effectively. (English should be dominated launguage) This source illustrates the practical difficulties of content moderation in a multilingual and international context, showing that ethical decisions about what to allow or remove are complicated by linguistic diversity.

Making content moderation decisions felt much challenging than what I thought. Even when I could clearly identify harmful content, I still worried about being too strict or unfair. It made me realize how much responsibility moderators carry. They are deciding what people can or can't say and that affects real communities.

The article by Mia Sato talks about how YouTube had millions of incorrect copyright claims in just six months. I thought this was interesting because it shows how automatic systems for copyright can make big mistakes and affect creators unfairly. It connects to the idea of replication and variation from the chapter since creators are often reusing or remixing content, but the system sometimes punishes them even when it’s fair use. It made me think about how platforms need better ways to balance protecting copyright and supporting creativity.

In unmoderated spaces, people with larger followers and greater influence and has stronger voices which can lead and set the tone of discussion. On the other hand, marginalized groups, quieter voices, or those who express unpopular opinions often have the least power. Without moderation, it becomes harder for respectful or minority perspectives to be heard.

The article by Sarah McQuate talks about how people can go into a “dissociative state” when using social media, where they scroll without really paying attention or remembering what they saw. I thought this was interesting because I’ve felt that before too, just scrolling for a while and realizing I didn’t really process anything. It made me think about how social media design can easily pull people in and affect how aware we are of what we’re doing.

Social media has both pros and cons for mental health. One benefit is that it helps me stay connected with people all around the world. As an international student, my friends live in different countries, so it would be hard to keep in touch without social media. By seeing their stories or posts, I can know what they’re up to and easily reach out through DMs or calls. However, one downside is how visible numbers are on social media. Like followers, likes, and comments. Since numbers are easy to compare, people might start to measure their own value or popularity based on them, which can make them feel insecure or pressured.

This article about Sampling a music talks about how musicians take parts of existing songs and reuse them to make something new. I thought this really connects to the idea of replication and variation from the chapter because music samples change and spread kind of like social media posts do. (From a small piece of a song can turn into something completely different when it’s used in another context.) It made me realize that creativity often comes from reusing and transforming what’s already there.

I thought it was really interesting how the chapter compared social media to evolution. It made me realize that posts kind of “evolve” too like when people add comments, quote tweets, or make new versions of memes. I see this a lot on TikTok, where one simple video turns into so many different versions as people keep adding their own twist. It’s interesting that how creative that can be, but also a little scary because no one really controls where it goes, and sometimes it ends up spreading negative stuff or misinformation.