This article explains how a study from the University of Washington looked at how people used Twitter. They installed an app called Chirp that connected to a users Twitter, then had a dialog box pop up every 15 minutes to check if the users were disassociating while scrolling.

If social media was inconsequential, then social media platforms would have less responsibility for the mental health of their users, although they still should not make user's mental health worse. However, it is physically impossible to not have social media or the internet in many places, such as Seattle. It is incredibly unethical for social media companies to exploit unhealthy behaviors.

This article tells the story of "TikTok stars", and how stressful and damaging that can be. Going viral on TikTok is an invitation for harassment and death threats on and offline, especially for those that are a part of the LGBTQ+ community. There are also issues with TikTok's unfair and unclear moderation, which has higher stakes if creators depend on TikTok for their income.

It's crazy that chain letters were a thing before the internet. I guess it's not to much money and effort to mail a bunch of letters, but definitely more than chain emails/reposts. I wonder who came up with it originally.

A lot of what can be said about the dismal state of internet privacy also applies to how algorithms work. Again, companies and individuals can learn sensitive information about someone that could put them in danger.

Something that was brought up in this article as well was that Target put random ads next to their targeted ones. Specifically, it was because people grew uneasy when the targeted ads were too specific to them. I wonder how often other companies do this too.

Holy cow that's bad. Moderation and social etiquette around children on the internet is stupendously terrible, and it stresses me out how much kids are exposed to the internet because of how integrated it is into our daily lives.

One thing I've noticed about both of these sources is that official organizations seem to be listened to and trusted about conversion and ABA therapy rather than the groups they affect. Even in the second source, the author makes their point not by quoting queer people or queer organizations, but by quoting general health and government organizations who haven't always had... favorable opinions of LGBTQ+ people.

This is baffling to me. I figured that most accessibility improvements/technology were at least partially designed by disabled people who have to deal with the problem. It's strange that in the voting machine redesign, they had people who weren't blind trying to emulate blindness, instead of, you know, hiring blind designers.

Something the article brings up which that is only going to get worse is posted pictures of children getting used by pedophiles. There was already that Taylor Swift debacle with AI fakes, and I shudder to think what's already going on in the more unsavory parts of the web.

It's crazy to me that etiquette about posting pictures of other people has become so lax. As a kid, parents and teachers would thoroughly impress on me that posting pictures that reveal personal information like your face or location was a bad idea. Over time, people have just accepted that it's fine or even choose to take pictures of strangers.

I didn't know about the metadata either. I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future too.

I'm a bit relieved that the Google categories weren't that accurate for me (makes sense, I try to stay away from as Google as much as I reasonably can be expected to). Still highly uncomfortable with data collection, but at least I can block my ads.

This is awful. I truly hate that companies can collect data without someone's consent (and frankly, the way privacy policies and daily life are set up I'm not a fan of data collection with consent either). Besides the general terribleness of invading people's privacy, this sort of data collection can get really dangerous really fast. In cases were people need/have abortions or LGBTQ+ identities (as addressed later on the page), people could get seriously hurt if that information was turned over to certain state governments.

In this article, Phillips recounts a series of events in 2007 in which 4chan users tricked local communities and media stations in believing that teenagers were using Jenkem. Phillips then explains how trolling reveals certain aspects of society, and fits right in with sensationalist reporting.

While different situations require different solutions, I'm inclined to accept "don't feed the trolls" as a general rule. Responding to a general trolling post takes up time and mental energy. It's just not worth it.

That being said, "don't feed the trolls" can't be used on all situations. Moderators and admins should still moderate their online spaces, and targets of harassment campaigns need different strategies. Either way though, responding to and engaging with the trolls won't make the situation better.

Since many advertisers left Twitter after Elon Musk's acquisition of the platform, do these brand accounts still exist in the same way they used to? If nothing else, I haven't seen anything similar on different platforms. There are still brands and advertisers that try to be hip and cool, but not in the way where they are trying to be indistinguishable from a platform's user base.

For most presidents, I assumed each tweet had a team of publicists behind it. Because Trump's tweets were so off the wall, I figured it was him. I find it endlessly fascinating that someone had to mimic his style, but it's also rather sad considering all the terrible things Trump has said.

For presidents, I don't think it matters too much which human writes a specific tweet, announcement, or speech. Ultimately, they are responsible for which people are in their administration and the views their communication channels espouse.

This source talks about scrolling and how it can lead to social media addiction. While nobody could have known the long-term consequences, it's unfortunate that social media companies continue to use infinite scrolling despite knowing the consequences.

I'm surprised that this dichotomy between the internet as an anonymous void where posts can only be traced back to a username and as a place for people to specifically find your real-life self existed so early on. I figured putting a bunch of personal information online was a more recent trend, so it's interesting to learn that LinkedIn and dating apps got their start 20 years ago.

Using limited data for ill is unfortunately more relevant than ever before because of AI, and I'm not surprised this was an issue beforehand. I can't fathom that the engineer didn't know what he was doing considering how politicized crime statistics are. I am deeply curious as to what the thought process to go ahead anyway was.

It's really interesting that most lists start at 0 instead of 1, and it was for early optimization reasons. It logically makes sense, but it isn't something I thought people would implement on purpose. I also appreciate the use of a cute dog picture for the example tweet.

After a quick google search, I'm a little disappointed that so many Instagram bots are used for growth. I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's a bit sad that platforms that purport to be used for connection are just another place for business.

My favorite bots by far are the ones that post themed images regularly, whether it be cats, red pandas, or old videogame posters. The gender pay gap bot also looked pretty cool.

I was aware that there were a lot of fake posts, reviews, and trends on the internet, but I wasn't aware the sheer volume of them. 20% of global trends on Twitter in 2019 and a third of customer reviews are fake according to the Wikipedia page. It's boggling to think how much and how easily our perceptions can be warped on the internet.

I definitely heard the phrase "social media isn't real life" several times growing up, mostly from online safety courses and adults older than me. I hear it much less nowadays, and I think it's interesting that I've never heard it from my peers. Because technology is necessary in day to day life for me and a lot of others (I wouldn't be able to do this homework assignment without it), it's getting harder to say phrases like that and completely mean it.

Despite being included under one framework, existentialists tend to have a wide variety of differing views. The nature of relationships, religion, and freedom can vary greatly from person to person. This makes sense in the context where people have to make their own meaning and determine their own morality.