Intentional data poisoning does seem reasonable in some cases- for example the Kellogg's strike that was not taken into account (on the company), was taken into account of the public. This reminds me of Tuesday's lecture on who wold benefit given a trolling situation. In this case, I think the employees would benefit, the company would get bad press because of their refusal to worker rights. So in some cases data poisioning is good.

Data mining seems to work very effectively and efficiently because, ads, profiles, videos are all catered to what you seem to like. I think this might be different but data mining also reminds me of how you might be talking about something and then you see ads on google about that exact thing. This does also make me question how third parties work and how can social media sites recommmend outside sources without the consent of the user knowing their personal information is going somewhere else?

Trolling and authenticity I feel are similar but not the same, I think trolling is probably one of the many reasons why the internet can be kind of a horrible place because when people do things like be a troll, they don't face as much repercussions and if they do get backlash thats what makes them feel more better so it's almost like the best thing to do is ignore/not give attention.

While reading this chapter I did think that some of the ethics frameworks would not see a huge ethical issue with trolling, I think that most troll accounts do view what they are doing as nilihism- that it doesn't matter and if you evoke a large negative reaction its good. I also found it not surprising that with this framework people (who troll) will only defend their group which is often all very bad social groups (misogynists, racist groups, violence etc.)