This phrase reminded me of something. When I was in high school, I ran the Redmond [High School] Compliments Facebook page (yeah, it was 2014). People sent anonymous compliments for people at the school into a google form and I posted them anonymously onto h the page. I had the page passed down to me anonymously and I had to keep my identity a secret until the end of the year when I revealed it in the yearbook as my "senior confession". I got to watch people react to anonymous kindness all year. It's one of the reasons why I really believe in the power of social media as a possible force for good. What this phrase "beauty of online anonymity" reminded me of specifically was a quote I found at the time that said something along the lines of "we read things from others in their voice, When we read something anonymously, we read it in our own voice." It meant so much to me to be a part of having people read aloud kindness in their own voices.

Yes, this kind of attitude drives me nuts. I hear this constantly, and as a historian it takes everything in me not to say "literally every generation fearmongered about the new technology and called the previous generation's technology wholesome!!" People were freaking out about the television's influence on children when it first got big, but it's all forgotten once something new things comes around. They did it for videogames, TV, phones, social media, even PRINTED BOOKS.

The word you're looking for here is "abled". Or, as some disability theorists call it, "currently abled", to remind people that you can become disabled at any time, and that if you live as long as you want to live, you will probably become disabled in some way.

That's me!!!! That's my thing!!! I am so surprised you have this as the first example, it's not even considered a real disability by the WA or US government yet. The first research study on it EVER came out in 2023 and finally proved it was real and we weren't making it up. It affects almost exclusively women (although I know two men with it), so it's mostly been put under the umbrella of "women being hormonal". There's a Golden Girls episode about it, actually. It could be aired today, none of the issues they discuss in it have changed at all. It has a lot in common with long COVID, so I'm hoping that that attention is going to change things.

I am very interested in how the law evolves around sharing content of children online. The area is ripe for exploitation, child abuse, and human rights violations, we're already seeing horrifying stories unfold. How many tots today are going to sue their parents tomorrow for publicly posting videos of them they find embarrassing, traumatizing, or invasive?

I haven't heard the term "social engineering" used for this kind of scam. I have mostly heard it for in person actions, like running into a building and insisting to the security guard that you're late for your interview upstairs and he has to let you in as soon as possible.

Google has me listed as single even though I am married. Maybe they don't understand how polyamory works and assumes that me being in multiple committed relationships must mean "single". Earlier in this book they discussed the possible problems with date collection and categorization, with the gender binary as an example. Clearly, this is another instance of something similar.

I haven't seen this example before. The example I've seen for this concept is that ice cream sales go up at the same time as drowning deaths, because most people get ice cream during the summer, which is also the time more people are swimming.

Unfortunately, I believe in the authenticity of others in Trump's campaign. I don't believe in the truthfulness/factuality, but I believe a lot of MAGA genuinely believes the literal lies they are saying. There are definitely many who are lying through their teeth for their own benefit and know it, the leaked group chats basically prove that. However, every movement needs true believers, and never underestimate the power of brainwashing.

This whole concept of authenticity as a form of intimacy is so interesting for the concept of Ethics of Care. In that framework, we can look at what responsibilities public figures have, but also what responsibilities we have for them. Yes, it is important for the public figure to be truthful, but also to entertain. So where is the line? And if we as the masses decide they didn't toe that line well enough, is it our responsibility to then forgive them and not cyber bully them to hell? Jennifer Lawrence is such a good example of this, because she has said that, in retrospect, she was initially being authentic, but the pressure of celebrity made her fall into that quirky persona as a safe place. But as soon as she got comfortable in it, they hated her for it, and made it extremely clear to her that they hated her for it. In the end, who is TRULY authentic? Who is truly being their unfiltered self 100% of the time? Not me, and I don't think many others.

I think the bot that quotes tweets with statistics of the pay gap at organizations is really effective. Activism burnout is real, if a human tried to do that they'd get exhausted with seeing so often just how bad it is and exhausted by whatever hate comments I'm sure the bot receives. A bot isn't going to care about any of that.

The cooking metaphor was extraordinarily helpful. I have tried to learn coding in several different ways before this class, I think this method will be the best for long term framing and understanding. Now if only I was actually good at baking, that would help a lot too.