One detail of this article is that it described that facebook's customer's passwords are stored on internal systems in plain text. This means that they are vulnerable and that both Instagram and Facebook users. This clearly shows how careless big companies are with their customers' data when they should be prioritizing it.

This seems like a way of trying to make leaking data acceptable. However, even though it doesn't directly expose individuals, it can still be used to make generalizations that are harmful to all customers. It can also still harm specific people as it said it could be traced back to the customer.

One detail of this article that stood out to me was the fact that algorithms are being used in order to find out people's sexuality that have their account private. This is based on their online connections with people that make their sexuality public. I think that this is very invasive and I think that it could be used for bad rather than for good in the form of content that is targetted at them because of their sexuality.

I understand that it makes sense to want to target ads at people that would actually be interested in buying the product, I do think the ethics of it can be questionable. This reminded me of how vapes are often advertised and created to appeal to younger audiences. While there is nothing technically wrong with advertising toward a target audience, it can be dangerous as it has the potential to have negative side effects on the consumers.

This article highlights Comedian Jaboukie Young-White's tweet on MLK Day. While his account was suspended and some thought his joke was offensive, the majority of the response was positive as people praised him. I think that these sort of jokes can be offensive but they can also be helpful for spreading awareness, such as the wrongdoings of the FBI regarding MLK in the 60's.

I didn't realize that trolling on such a large scale happened as early as the 1950's. It would be cool if news sources did this today because spreading misinformation as a joke is much better than how news sources today actually spread misinformation. This type of trolling is harmless and should be done more often.

I think that this is very interesting because it exposes so much of Trump's mindset versus his staff's which is very contrasting when put side by side. Trump's staff is much more professional and informative. Trump himself appears to be much more emotional, and probably much more effective in creating a parasocial relationship as his tweets are less promotional and more emotionally evocative.

Although parasocial relationships are very common today, I haven't seen them be politely defined in such a way. I think that this clarification that their relationship is parasocial yet still being very kind and gracious is something that should be practiced more today. The clarification of their relationship is something we need more now that there are many intense parasocial relationships. However, people in parasocial relationships today are often made fun of and trolled online, which is not helpful and only calls attention to the problem without solving it, unlike Mr. Rodger's kind clarification of their relationship.

This clip was very interesting to me because it showed how influential people like Mark Zuckerberg and his peers were during the creation of social media. It really highlighted how no one knew the massive impact that social media would have, and it also foreshadowed that it would be founded in greed rather than with peoples' best interests in mind.

It's interesting that these sort of interactions are considered antisocial because although they have a very obvious negative connotation, I think they are still very social in nature. I also think it's odd that these issues still persist on regulated media sites, considering they all became popular long ago on more unregulated sites. By now, I would've hoped that there was a better solution in place to manage and regulate these types of "anti-social" behaviors.

Considering Elon Musk's current standing with X, it is very weird to me to see him criticize Twitter in the past. I also think it's odd that he criticized the bots before acquiring Twitter and he promised to take down bots, yet since he has bought it and changed it to X, use of bots has increased, not decreased like he said his goal was.

I'm curious as to what the flaws of utilitarianism are. I know very little about it besides what was described in the reading, but it seems like a logical and helpful way to go about solving problems ethically and morally. The only thing I could see about it that could be problematic is that it might ignore the potential negative aspects of certain outcomes if it only focuses on what the best outcome is. Still, I wonder how this applies to social media and data found through social media. The connection I draw between utilitarianism and such data on social media is that data could be incorrect or misleading, which could then lead to assumptions or allegedly ethical solutions to issues that weren't reported properly in the first place.

This disconnect between actions and intentions is very interesting to me as it presents a new ethical issue. I believe bots are very unique in how they display morals that people instilled in them, yet they aren't people directly expressing their beliefs. I worry that bots could become even more disruptive without any set of universal procedures on how to handle them. Rather than a specific app such as twitter having their own policies for dealing with bots, I think it is increasingly important that there is a governmental procedure/department that polices bots as they are becoming more and more effective in disrupting media and spreading misinformation.

This stood out to me because I previously thought of bots as being unorganized and programmed to cause chaos, especially in a political sense, through the spread of misinformation. This bot goes against my previous perception of bots since it is affiliated with a reliable source and is used for good, to spread the truth about wage gaps and expose companies that don't practice what they preach.

Although this is a very common rule, the golden rule, I have never applied it to social media before. I think it's interesting because it seems like such a simple concept, basic human empathy, to not want others to hurt, especially like you have, and yet this sentiment is rarely seen online. Social media is a common place for people to project their insecurities onto others, trying to bring others down to their level, which is the opposite of the golden rule.

In hopes of creating a harmonious society, Confucian ideals were upheld by the civil service exam. Although this exam process was made to find qualified imperial officials, it was a very widespread exam. I think that this is interesting because it is a way of upholding societal values in a very effective way. This seems very controlling, and very different from the current age of social media where no set of widely accepted morals exist.