This shows how far back this fear of innovation really stems (leading all the way to the 1800s with the textile factories). Makes me wonder if all of these innovation are really that bad, or if it is human nature to shy away from innovation.

Interesting how so many inventions that had good causes were used for evil purposes. The cotton gin being one of these examples. I think social media as a whole fits in with this category. Initially, the intention was positive and wholesome, but as time passed it started to become a beast of its own.

Interesting how the tech industry evolved into this. I always thought of colonialism as being an ancient idea that doesn't apply to our world today. In fact, I am wrong because colonialism is present but in very different ways. Silicon Valley is a perfect example of this.

In modern day, it looks like social media platforms have become into a beast of their own. No longer the fun and innocent content sharing website they once were. This idea of taking user's data and selling it for profit without the user knowing is exactly what I'm talking about.

I thought this was a really interesting series of tweets. Basically, this person made a tweet that offended some people. As a result, he got a lot of unwanted heat. His response is quite extraordinary given the lengths he goes to apologize.

That's an interesting idea. But I think it is true. A lot of the general public does find it entertaining to witness and read about the misfortunes of people who have celebrity status. As such, schadenfreude is a correct concept.

I didn't know this was what actually happened. I thought people in Britain had a genuine issue with that marriage. Technology can really influence the general public's outlook on issues without the public even knowing. Quite fascinating.

Stochastic terrorism is a term I've never heard of. Basically, someone "orchestrates an act of terror" but not intentionally. This is done through this person's large following. I think the attack on the White House would be a good example of this, back in January of the last election.

That is actually really interesting. I could have never imagined that scientific discoveries would stem from something as silly a crowdsourcing. Fold-It truly is a phenomenon that must be studies further.

I've never heard of this term "crowdsourcing". Although, I have seen it all around me. Like the example given, Wikipedia is the product to a crowd of people making small contributions (ie. crowdsourcing). Just found it interesting that we give this behavior a word.

Interesting that some of this moderation power is given to the users as well. I think this is also an effective means of quality control since there is such an abundance of content and comments out on the internet.

I never thought that there would be people working behind the scenes to monitor what content is put out on certain websites. Now that it is mentioned, this idea does make a lot of sense. You don't want users to continuously post offensive or inappropriate content to these websites because it can ruin the site's reputation.

In other words, times are changing and people should learn to adapt. There may be a time in the future where people will idealize current day. Where we only have smartphones and laptops as compared to whatever there may be in that time. The solution is not to revert back in time, but to learn to adapt to modern day.

That is really interesting. I've heard of scientific experiments where newborn twins that were adopted were separated at birth in order to tackle the question of nature vs nurture. Of course this is extremely unethical because there wasn't any consent given to the research subjects and because you are messing with helpless human beings. So how is this Facebook experiment any different? I am surprised to hear that Facebook would commit an unethical action like so.

Based off of this portion of text, I get the sense that social media platforms are built for spreading information or content. There is an abundance of methods at your disposal to share content with other people. Of course some content will become viral given enough people share it.

This is an interesting explanation of what a meme is. Basically, it states that a meme spreading is analogous to a gene in a DNA sequence spreading to other species. I just thought this was a very interesting comparison.

I guess this tweet sums up one of the behaviors of the algorithm. If something is gaining popularity for the wrong reason, the algorithm doesn't know that it is for the wrong reason. The algorithm only knows that it is gaining popularity. As such, that specific content will keep getting pushed by the algorithm.

I didn't know that algorithms vary from company to company. I thought the algorithm that recommends videos to my feed would be standardized across all social media companies. This is because of how similar all of these algorithms seem to work. I feel like they all recommend videos based off of the same criteria.

I would assume this is an honest mistake. Of course, I don't think the designers behind the soap dispenser really thought to exclude people of a certain pigment of skin color. Just goes to show how many little details need to be taken into account when designing certain products if the goal is to not exclude any one group.

Interesting point regarding disabilities. I always assumed a disability would be something that inhibits someone's day to day activities in some shape or form. Although, the book defines disabilities basically as something that goes against the norm. The example given is how some people (referred to as tetrachromats) can see more combinations of colors than most people. As such, they diverge from the norm in this sense, yet are not impaired by this "disability".

Just another interesting comment I noticed. I didn't expect that non users would have their data/information tracked as well. Seems rather odd to me. I guess this just goes to show how widespread the idea of collecting data from users has grown. Makes sense considering how these companies profit off of this data.

I found this comment to be interesting. Of course when I sign up to use a social media app/website, I know that by signing the terms and conditions I am giving up some privacy. Although, I would be under the impression that the companies would have a higher standard to keep my private information secure. I feel uneasy now knowing about these past hacks into major tech companies where a lot of private information was accessed and given out.

I found this idea to be interesting. Often times, when I see real data and statistics backing up a claim, I almost entirely give credit to the claim. It's almost as if I don't actually need to read the data to believe it. I think many other people fall into this trap as well, this being giving too much respect to data. This sentence makes a great claim that often times, data can be coincidental. The example in the graph shows how data backs the claim that the divorce rate and margarine consumption are correlated, but this is just an absurd idea. The data simply is coincidental.

I knew that platforms can collect data such as where users are located and when users are logged on and logged off. Although, I found it absurd that information on what posts users pause over and what specific things users click on surprising. I didn't expect that that even minuscule things such as how much time I spent looking at something could be recorded and used to tailor results to my "liking".

I found this example interesting because it is probably the only example I read in this chapter that is representative of harmless trolling. I find the trolls to be motivated more so from a comedic purpose. There doesn't seem to be any internal motive to illicit a negative reaction from the recipient. Overall, I enjoyed reading about this example of the banana slicer.

I thought this sentence perfectly sums up what I read about tolling thus far in this chapter. From the examples and descriptions given thus far, I definitely agree that all these extreme and sometimes vulgar actions taken through the act of trolling is simply to illicit a reaction from the viewer. The reactions being good or bad entirely depends on the situation, but overall I get the sense that trolling is not a positive thing.

I thought this was an interesting point relating anonymity to authenticity. Whenever I think about someone being anonymous on the internet, I always think of them getting the freedom to express toxic behavior that may be considered "inauthentic". I never thought about it from the perspective that anonymity could enforce true authentic behavior. Just an interesting point I ran into when reading this page.

I never followed Trump's tweets during the election season, so I didn't know about this. I guess in hindsight, this does make sense. I knew Trump had a reputation of tweeting aggressively and having emotion conveyed through his tweet. So it makes sense campaign announcements are tweeted in a different tone. I also see the connection to authenticity, and how viewers might lose faith in his tweets if part of them are not actually written from Trump.

Looking at the graphic, I see a stark contrast from the social media of modern day to the social media of the past (specifically in the layout and design). I feel like social media has become much more simplistic in its design as well as more user friendly. The image displayed looks really clustered and confusing to look at. Just goes to show how far social media and technology has evolved.

I never thought about what social media was before the era of social media that we know of today. The textbook makes a really good point that social media is simply ways that people communicate and spread rumors, updates, and news. In that sense, graffiti and news write-ups was basically social media from another time period. They fulfill all these basic requirements for it.

I never thought about data in this sense, but it does make sense. Putting a number to an experience or event is a massive oversimplification of it, and I don't think it does any justice to how grand or spectacular (or perhaps not grand and not spectacular) the event was. How can you capture the emotions, the sounds, the sights, the smells, etc. by labelling it with a number? You simply can't. I guess this is what the authors are trying to get at when they say you are taking/losing characteristics when using data.

Of course what is being said makes sense. Often times data sets published to the public do err in some sense or the other. Whether it be missing data, erroneous data, biased data, manipulated data, etc. I found this interesting because when I read statistics off of news articles or textbooks, I often don't question the numbers. I think this is because when I see a really finite number (such as 52.8%), I give it high regard and credibility. When in reality, I should question it and pay more attention to any flaws such as the ones listed here.

I have never coded before (except briefly using scratch.mit in elementary school). As such, I find this idea of treating coding as a language (like English) very interesting. Essentially, I can structure code through various rules and laws to give it proper meaning. Just like how English has certain laws regarding things like punctuation, verb tenses, etc.; what it looks like is programming has their own set of laws that will govern how I write code.

I have never coded before (except briefly using scratch.mit in elementary school). As such, I find this idea of treating coding as a language (like English) very interesting. Essentially, I can structure code through various rules and laws to give it proper meaning. Just like how English has certain laws regarding things like punctuation, verb tenses, etc.; what it looks like is programming has their own set of laws that will govern how I write code.

I found this idea of a click farm really interesting. I've never heard of such a concept before, it being a "human bot". I almost see a parallel between the mass production of goods during the industrial revolution to what is nowadays, a mass production of internet likes through labor as well. Just an interesting idea I thought I should comment on.

Another framework that was not mentioned in 2.2.3, but would fit into the category of "Ancient Ethics" would be stoicism. A brief rundown on the key points in stoicism: A big belief of stoicism is that all people are equals. Things such as our wealth, status, power, possessions, and stature are neither good nor bad, nor should they be important to social relationships.

I thought this was an interesting comparison that was made between ethics and medicine. In medicine, doctors often prescribe various different tests in order to find out the root of a patient's problem. Similarly, when presented with an ethical dilemma, people often take not account various differs views and perspectives before reaching a conclusion. I never viewed ethics in this sense.