I think he is very underrated and not spoken about enough, probably since he is more modern. I wonder what he would think about Apple and its products today, and if it would live up to his vision.

I think that this method is very effective. It is also very tricky because it makes the company seem helpful and almost friendly, yet it is not actually providing free internet because of good intentions. One question I have is how many people have free internet because of Facebook and how many of those people know that they are being pushed to use Facebook.

I have seen this prank before and I have thought that it was pretty harsh. However, we only see the immediate aftermath of the prank. One question I have about it is how long does it take the kids to recover from the distress that the prank gives them.

I do think that cancel culture has often been assumed to be a very extreme reaction, but I think that it is actually a range of reactions. Shaming people on line without banishing them from the internet is very common. Public criticism and public shame is far too normalized, and it is a prominent factor of cancel culture, but it is also its own issue.

This source gave me an interesting perspective on harassment because of one detail it had which was the fact that no one from the royal family publically supported Meghan while the British press was blatantly racist toward her. This provides insight on harassment, because I think that those that stay silent during someone's harassment do just as much harm as those who are actually doing the harassing. I also think that in this case, it is especially important because the royal family is extremely influential, so it had the potential to be very positively impactful for Meghan if they stood by her and supported her while she was being harassed.

I never thought of resume filtering as a type of harassment, but this type of discrimination definitely seems like it should be considered harassment. I wonder how these issues can be fixed, and how do these unfair types of screening practices actually make it to being used without someone catching how unfair it is. My question about this is how often does this problem still occur and how can it be fixed?

One detail about this source that I thought was interesting was when it described how Biden's administration edited his Wikipedia page. Although they said they did it to make it more accurate, they could've easily changed the language just to make Biden look better. I don't think this is a big deal since Wikipedia isn't that relied on anymore, but it is still questionable that his own staff changed it.

I think that this is an example of how powerful the internet can become, for good or bad. Sometimes it can be very helpful to crimes when people work together online. However, in cases like this, people take their vigilante mindset too far and end up doing more harm than good,

I didn't know that content moderators were actual people, so this article was very interesting to me. They should definitely be given more respect because the article said they make less money than the average facebook worker and are treated with less respect yet they are doing arguably the most difficult and traumatizing work. It would be ideal if a robot or program could moderate the content so people don't have to view such gruesome content, but until then they should at the very least be treated with more respect.

I didn't realize how much of an impact twitter's content moderators had on what type of content citizens of certain countries such as China were able to consume. While it is not Twitter's responsibility to uphold democracy or any other American ideals, I think the impact the content moderation has should be taken more seriously. This is because the implications of it are so strong in countries such as China that will restrict certain content as much as they can.

I think that there was one interesting detail in the article that said that changing the term of social media "addiction" to "dissociation" removes the shame that people have surrounding their social media usage. I've never heard this term but I think it is important in starting a productive conversation about how to improve peoples' relationship rather than shaming them for having a bad one. Some people might also not know what dissociation means which could lead them to look into the issue, benefiting them and spreading awareness on the issue.

I agree that a detox can be helpful, but it is not a realistic solution. In these times, social media is useful to make connections not only with friends, but with colleagues, and a digital detox could sever those connections, and also prevent future connections from forming. I think that the most realistic and healthy relationship to have with social media in the current age is to use it to keep in touch with people, further business connections. Using it for entertainment is also fine as long as it is not to the extent of doomscrolling.

"Meme" comes from the Ancient Greek word mīmēma which inspired the word minmeme which was just shortened to the word meme. In Greek, it meant "imitated thing" and it was originally exemplified as "melodies, catchphrases, fashion, and the technology of building arches." I think it's also interesting how memes have gotten dumber over time, I think it shows how the internet has influenced humanity in general.

I think that it's very interesting to think of memes as a piece of history. I have though of memes as culture before but not as history. I do disagree slightly with the text because I think trend are very fast now and a lot of them are forgotten. However, there are some memes that are more iconic and aren't forgotten as quickly.

While I don't think that this is necessarily good, I think it is important to keep in mind. Since the algorithm can't tell the difference between positive or negative engagement online and only sees how often users interact with certain content, it is important to remember that the algorithm will feed you whatever engages you the most. This has the potential to create very upsetting feeds for users, if users keep this in mind, they can use it to their advantage by simply not engaging with anyting that inspires hate or other unproductive negative emotions within them.

I think that these bubbles or echo chambers have generally done more harm that good. When people are surrounded by people that think like them, their ideas get reinforced at an unhealthy extent. Their ideas become so validated that over time they become close minded and are unopen to even listening to other peoples' opinions that are outside their bubble. This can become very dangerous as it can make people become viciously passionate not only about politics, but everything pop culture related, and it creates a very polarizing atmosphere where people are scared to speak up and show their "contraversial" opinions.

This website explains general anxiety and all of its symptoms. I think it is important that designers do at least basic research like this in order to make sure that what they create can be used by anyone with any type of disability.

I think that this shows the importance of accessible designs. It is such a simple ask, to make sure a design works for all potential users. Masking is detrimental to the people with disabilities as well as the designers because it means they created something that doesn't even work for everyone. This is why it's important designs are inclusive.

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.