In regards to this, I would like to know a little bit more about Facebook's recent developments, namely changing their name to "Metaverse", and how they decided to prioritize some changes in opposition to creating a more sustainable, and more user-based governance platform, since it appears to me that is where future technology is heading and what users are demanding.

This seems to me like one of the many ways that technology reflects and reinforces problems within the real world rather than creating it. The similar small group of homogenized individuals at the top feels familiar to our own economic setup in the US, and a lot of citizens believe that the concentrated few in power do not adequately provide for the rest of society. I just thought this was an interesting parallel to consider, as well as an argument that technology doesn't create anything on its own, the people that use it do.

I am still a bit confused on how the rule of not allowing kill shelters is enforced rather than just simply asking it of whoever gets ahold of the code. I think this could have been better clarified by the author, at least for a reader like me who is not well versed in coding or IRS communities.

Adding to my previous comment, I do think that this is a common issue in online spaces, because so much of it is still uncharted territory with unclear rules, values, laws, ethics, etc. With that inconsistency and lack of clarity, I can see the point the author is making and the concern for coders that want to only establish certain kinds of ethical communities.

In theory this feels like the right place to not only code for mistakes, but intentions of the project to ensure it adheres to the values of the coder.

I'm currently taking a social movements course and I liked this analogy between sit-ins and the cyberfeminist practices on International Women's Day. I think these kind of analogies make it easier to understand the depth and impact of what occurs in online spaces, since I feel sometimes that can be vague in papers like such.

I'm surprised that the author did not mention the most recent appearance of the Anonymous hacktivist group involving a Donald Trump scandal in summer 2020 that primarily took form on Twitter. I was hoping to know more about this.

This specific diversion reminds me a lot of Reddit, as subreddits only exist based off people's mere interest, but only exist on the account of communication from the members of the subreddit's community.

I think that these are all apart of the trust crisis, as when I began using the Internet more heavily as a teenager, I felt hesitant saving my credit card information and addresses on websites. However, I think the author could have also touched on what I feel to be the greatest element of the trust crisis, being the selling of data to companies and receiving targeted ads on every social media platform I have. I think that was really the first time I ever felt unsafe with my technology. However, I can see how the spread of disinformation and protection against harassment are primary concerns as well, they just don't pertain much to my personal experience online since I don't engage much with online communities and limit my time on social media.

Personally, this governance sounded really interesting to me, as I found it appealing that spaces would adhere more to the rules the members create because the moderators are part of the communities themselves and care about the well-being of it as a whole, and the members within it. I also appreciate how easy it seems to isolate individual cases of unethical conduct, and that whole instances could be blocked from the members of the community. This kind of structure is appealing to me and I hope one day I can engage in something like this and understand better how it operates.

I am most certain that this shift to decentralized platforms will become more common, but I am curious as to when and how it will happen. Where will the majority draw the line of inadequate action from reporting and make the shift?

It was mentioned that the larger the scale, the more difficult the moderation becomes, essentially slowing down response times to reported posts/users. This makes me wonder if centralized social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, should they ever want to implement moderation and a decentralized form, even have a chance of said moderation. My concern would be that the platforms already have such a large base, and the scale would be too large to cover.

I agree, I think governance and moderation need to be the issues that Facebook and other platforms address, rather than attempting to create a Metaverse that doesn't really seem to have much applicability to what is going on in the online climate. I think it is essential to redress issues like this before moving forward into uncharted territory, or else Facebook may lose respect, as I believe it already has.

This analogy put into perspective the goals of moderators for me, since before I really couldn't grasp why individuals volunteer their time to moderate internet communities and forums. This just cleared it up for me and I like the analogy.

I have had personal experience with this, as on TikTok, users have found ways to communicate words and phrases that are banned from community guidelines. It does not bother me at all, since most of the time what is being prohibited are conversations and topics that I am interested in (exactly why they're showing up on my "for you page" to begin with). I think auto-robot moderators can be helpful in some cases to limit certain speech that is extremely distasteful or harmful for younger crowds to see, but in my experience, the auto-moderators aren't very effective and usually try to take down things that aren't even that harmful. This opinion is mostly attributed to my experience with TikTok, as with other platforms I haven't taken much notice into how they are moderating content.

I could not disagree more. Since I have actively taken a step back from being active on social media, my life has improved tremendously. Still, this kind of postulation makes me wonder what prompted this belief. In my project for this course, I am looking into cancel culture, and one element I am inspecting is how it homogenizes online discourse regarding public figures and/or offensive acts. Even though keeping the platform "clean" is a nice goal to have, I think that sometimes posts that are flagged and banned are ones that particular people take offense to because it doesn't align with their beliefs. It sort of concerns me that discourse on the internet could take a homogenized form.

Back then I think it was hard to put into perspective that the internet essentially reflects the groups and types of people in the real world, and that some form of law or moderation needs to be implemented because of this. The only way that an online community could function as a "marketplace of ideas" would be if only certain people who were committed to the community's values could be admitted.

In my best attempt to understand DAOs in this weeks article, this was by far the simplest put way of understanding how it all works. It is essentially a group of trusted alliances that exchange resources (tokens) and who work toward common goals, whatever those may be. I suppose I am still most curious as to what the benefits of participating in a DAO are compared to a traditional online groupchat over a social media like Reddit.

I would really appreciate greater explanation in the differentiation between regular tokens and reputational tokens, as I am trying to apply them to my experience on the Internet to better understand them.

The question that I really have with token economy is if it allows for easier access of marginalized groups to obtain them. Traditional corporate interests, memberships and shares are not typically evenly distributed, as some groups are limited to access to such benefits and are not in positions to secure them. I'm curious to know more about how a decentralized system like a DAO relates to pertaining inequalities within society, and if it reflects the inequality larger society encompasses, or if it creates an entire new way of obtaining "wealth". My best guess relates to my own personal experience: while I am sure I could figure out how to operate in a system like a DAO, I just haven't had adequate education in understanding how it works, putting me on the outside, and therefore at a disadvantage in this economy.

Again, I am completely unfamiliar with this whole concept of DAOs and blockchain technology so I mostly have questions as to how it works. I am curious as to what kinds of goals these allies go in on, and what incentives are in it for them to be a part of an "alliance". Do people use DAOs to communicate, come together and pursue goals because of the lack of interference of a third-party authority?

Despite my obvious confusion, I actually am really curious to know more about blockchain technology, as I can definitely a more decentralized future of the Internet. I think it's really impressive that individuals have found a way to create a network without one or multiple authorities, and I'm extremely curious as to what this means for everyday people like myself potentially having too get familiar with this technology in the future.

Due to the absence of a central authority, does that imply that all pieces of data in the blockchain are equally valued? Or is there any instance where one would take precedence of another?

Blockchain is still completely new to me and this is really the first time I have attempted to understand it. I am puzzled how Genesis DAO was hacked if the whole point of implementing block chain technology is to avoid issues involving hacking? Perhaps the author could have elaborated more on how this happened for newbies like myself.

This touches on my previous point, that it would take mass support from actors to produce a true democratic institutional setting.

As much as this makes sense for the majority, the top minority that already have power will not want to give it up by dispersing it more equally among people. It seems to me that no matter how many points are made in favor of true democracy, it might never be possible with the systems currently in place. Perhaps new infrastructures can implement this sort of organization, in hopes of inspiring other newly introduced ones to do the same. Other than that, people who have power are mostly never in support of losing it, even if it's just a small amount.

Is this not what colonials technically managed? A non-privatized system of utilizing and managing resources, refrained from self-interested and exploitative behavior. We know it is possible for humans to govern themselves and act for the collective good, but at the same time it feels almost impossible that a system like this could be implemented today. I personally wonder how this is applicate in the digital world, since on its surface, resources seem to be infinite. I would be curious to know more about online resources and how they can be exploited, as I cannot think of anyways this currently happens at the top of my head.

I wonder if anyone has begun to think of the ways that this kind of work will be eventually automated, especially considering the concern of AI and IT programs already being unreliable. I like the analogy Gray made with individuals having to sew shirts before technological advances automated the process. Eventually, I think the processes will be automated (before listening to this I honestly thought they already were), but Gray highlights an important contention that that is probably not happening any time soon, so figuring out how to best treat, acknowledge, and compensate these workers should be the primary task of the companies that utilize and exploit them.

I personally argue that individuals are doing this work because they have no other choice. Just like other undervalued jobs, the people that work them are probably not working in the job because they are passionate about it or plan to stay doing it forever. What is frustrating in this instance is that those working these jobs are even more poorly compensated for their work, as compared to a grocery store clerk, and are more exploited in being online as a "regular" or "always on", and that they may find it more difficult to find a way out. Finding a way out of this employment may also be a challenge because it is virtually void of interacting with others, so few connections are being made.

The fact that roughy 5% of the population participates in this work and it has only been around for a decade exemplifies its probable growth for the future. Considering this, I think Gray offers a good point in saying that these people should be better compensated for their work, perhaps by receiving a baseline wage, so that they can step away if they are sick or on vacation. It makes me sad to think these people are living their lives online, all the time, with little compensation for the work they are doing, and without identification of the companies they are working for. The fact that Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. cannot get a rough head count of the people doing this work only further emphasizes how devalued it is.

Due to these systems potentially becoming more prevalent, it is essential that if their prevalence cannot be suspended, that at least the technology becomes more accurately aligned with faces of racial/ethnic minorities and women. Though I would prefer for more biometrics to be implemented, mostly due to the fact that programmers do not even know exactly how they work, I think there are possibly potential ways they could be used for good. The bias that the programs have now is unacceptable though, especially because there are big companies like Amazon and Facebook that have this information and can dispose it to other companies at any time, that is, if they already haven't.

The parts of this video that show the implementation of biometrics, specifically facial recognition, in other countries the U.K., Hong Kong and China makes this type of reality feel a lot closer. I do agree with the point that we already do have a great amount of watching and scoring that is taking place beyond what we can see. It makes people feel unsurveillanced and that they can live their lives freely, when really we are also being watched.

The contention of algorithmic justice being a primary issue in social rights campaigns is interesting to me mostly because I haven't heard much about it until now. What was craziest for me to see in the video is how far China has implemented facial recognition in living their lives and obtaining a product as simple as soda. I am curious to how this conversation has developed since the release of this video and where the debate with Facebook potentially using their facial recognition databases for further sale and identification.

What I appreciated most about Browne's discussion was that she called into question how much we should trust the "need" for biometrics. They have increasingly begun to play a role in our everyday lives, especially with getting into an iPhone, viewing saved passwords and even filling out credit/debit card information automatically in online purchases. It makes life easier, but at what cost?

I think Browne's connection drawn between slave branding and biometric technology was an incredibly interesting view of how discrimination persists today in America. Her examples of facial recognition incidences and point about certain professions potentially wearing down fingerprints offers important insight into how biometrics favor prototypical whiteness. I would be interested to see how much, if any, changes have been since her talk in 2014, to biometrics, because to me they seemed to have improved.

I would be interested to learn more in depth about geek mentality, since this is really the first instance I have come across of someone trying to explain it. It doesn't surprise me that this sort of mentality exists, but it does surprise me that many sinister actions spawn out of this complex and I would be curious to know more about the psychology of these individuals, since it is underdiscussed (in comparison to jock mentality of athletes).

I found this addition important, because I think any white person in America, or in online spaces, does not recognize their privileges of being white. Especially considering the origins of "social media" on the internet, which was dominantly used by affluent, white men, it is important to still consider the limitations faced by marginalized groups in online spaces like Reddit. Also, I think the author does a nice job of describing the enduring presence of reluctance in marginalized groups to join and participate in conversation on Reddit, since there are many subreddits, as mentioned, that are discriminatory toward them. As a reddit user myself, while my name is anonymous, it still implies that I am female, and partially limits my discussion on some subreddits that I can tell are male-dominated.

Which I would argue is the entire premise of Reddit, which supports my previous claim that something like GG or the Fappening are certain to occur again if Reddit's governance does not change. Especially since the author provides support for the monetary value they are able to achieve off their current system, and the fact that they didn't shut down the Fappening until 6 days later. They do not really care about the moderation of those kinds of comments, which is why they put that role in the hands of volunteers, but instead really just care about the money.

It is the same line in many of these readings, that technology is a mere reflection of who we already are, which in my opinion, paints it out to be void of responsibility of how our society is shaped today. The truth is that technology has changed my life and my world in its own way, apart from my mere engagement with it. I am interested to look more into how this concept of mere reflection is appraised by more people.

The issue that arises from the assumption of the algorithm providing information about what it thinks users want to read is that the same few points of information are touched on for everyone's feed because of the posts' clicks and engagement. This in turn does lead to a homogenized view that is concerning, because real debate is still important, in my opinion, for making conscious and sound decisions as a whole.

This part of the quote resonated with me because I feel like it perfectly captures what it's like to participate in online social life. You can hear and see so many lives and share yours, yet it still feels impersonal and void of real connection that real life provides.

I think it is also important to consider another roadblock stopping us from making collective decisions is how divided the country is right now, which has been probably made worse from the presence of social media in the most recent election.

I believe this is true, which concerns me because I myself am an active participant in online spaces and discussion. The same ideas are always amplified, as my friends and I have seen the same videos and have read the same news. Though we have similarities as friends, we are still different in many ways, yet not receiving any different or opposing information. So many conversations are silenced because the majority do not want to be presented with conflicting information when they have already made their mind up about something they've read or seen previously. I am planning on touching on this dismissive action so many people participate in with cancel culture in my project for class.

This is exactly what I was thinking, that it must be processed and appraised in the same way in the human brain and to invalidate the experience just because it happened online is detrimental to actually being able to process what happened.

I think this is a problem in the sense that with so much discussion around Mr. Bungle, it would not have been that hard for those in charge to remove him. For one, it makes it seem like they could care less about the concerning actions that take place on their site, probably due to their false perception that they don't have to take accountability for them. I am tired of tech companies thinking they are just running platforms for people to speak, but that they can't refrain anyone from saying something offensive or uncomfortable. Their silence and reluctance to monitor their platforms seems to me, to be lazy and a sign of endorsement of events like those discussed in this article.

I think this just goes to show how much the lines are becoming blurred with what happens in real life and what happens online, since people are increasingly spending more time online than ever. Though the format is different, the experience of discrimination and exploitation still produces the same feelings as if they did occur in real life. I think it is essential that more research is to be done about the instances like this that occur online, and that more strict guidelines or "laws" are put in place to govern online actions. While I understand it is supposed to be a free space, I think events like this show that lack of governance is just as concerning online as it is real life, and can have serious implications with its absence.

I this part about the psychic double really interesting and want to look more into reading Foucault. I also like how the author tied it to the experience of cyber-rape to justify it as an experience similar, if not the same as rape in real life.

Though I can see how it might be difficult for some people to resonate with this experience, and appraise it in the same way, I think it is something to take into consideration. As technology becomes more and more present and influential in my life, I understand that something like this is not an event that I will be immune to. Even though I don't participate in anything like LambdaMOO, I used to when I was younger and was subject to it then.

I completely agree. Why we forced into this agreement that was not ours to begin with? Why were we so quick to comply to this technology and not question it, since we hardly benefit from it. When I get a perfectly targeted ad it does not make my life easier, but rather more concerned, and I don't know if I will ever be able to accept what is going on and write it off as normal because it makes me feel extremely violated.

It seems like when we go online we are hardly actors anymore in the information we "seek". In many ways, it is already paved out for us, as described here. We are studied, and our lives are made easier because of it. I never get completely irrelevant advertisements anymore when on social media, and specifically on YouTube, where I remember a time only some companies were learning to tap into the monetization of producers' content and the same, few ads would always play. It seems that technology knows me better now than I know myself, and even though it makes me frightened, I haven't changed my interaction and consumption of technology in the slightest, and I don't think many other people have either, which is something I would be curious to know more about.

This is the knowledge that is eery to know, that we are being watched everywhere and there is nothing we can do about it. This just makes me extremely anxious as to where the future of technology is heading and the unknown ways it will continue to be entrenched in our daily lives and the lack of question or resistance of the majority of people about it.

I wonder what the author is implying what would make this relationship between the users and surveillance capitalism reciprocated, other than getting advice from professionals. Is there another way people could be compensated, perhaps financially, for their data being sold, or will that just put the companies under more public eye which could threaten their whole tactic to be unperceived in the first place?

It still is hard for me to believe that Google is completely indifferent to what data it captures from its users. Being watched and studied is an uncomfortable truth with technology now, and even if no one is closely looking at it, at least according to the author, it still is an uncomfortable thought to think of someone or something closely studying you. For me, at least, this knowledge has me very conflicted. On the one hand, I would like to say I live a private life because I don't update my social media as often as others and keep my life to myself and my close family and friends. But in another sense, I really don't have privacy at all, and that feels especially true when I get targeted ads. It kind of makes me question if the privacy I perceive to have is really there at all.

This must be where it began, because it is clear now that big data serves to retrieve quantity over quality and that is what is valued primarily. Once the system became more proficient and companies waged for more "packaged" data, it is turn continuously being collected.

I wonder how social identity is different online than it is in person. How one would may initially think of online social identity being completely in the hands of the creator/owner of the information they spread and the profile they create, is really just a facade of the Internet itself. It is not a place where you can decide who you want to be and what you want to say, which I think is especially highlighted by the Google search image from 2011. It seems to be clear that Black women and girls' identities have already been selected for them.

This image really bothered me, to see that the search results for something as simple as "black girls" to turn up so much pornographic material is disgusting. It makes me curious what it is like today, if it's changed, or has just been reconfigured to be more politically correct. Though I am sure the algorithm has been modified, I still believe the Internet continues to support and drive up what serves the male gaze as a priority, mostly because they know that is what will keep them online longer. It's just really disappointing.

I would be curious to know more about how the Internet has worsened the problems of uneven distributions for every marginalized group. Specifically, what specific function(s) have allowed for greater divide in social groups online, and have the problems worsened due to the Internet, or because of other extraneous variables and events that we have been faced with in the past 10 years.

I personally feel like this is saying that the Internet is not creating the stereotypes attached to certain groups, but is rather reflecting what is already existent in society itself. Though I partially agree, I also think it is taking a lot of the responsibility away from the Internet, since Google allowed for these searches and rank order, with full capability of changing them.

I have always wondered, and would be curious to know more about why the goal is to have people stay online for as long as they can. I have definitely fallen prey to this, as it feels impossible at times to put my phone down while scrolling through Tik-Tok's ridiculously catered algorithm. I would be curious if those who have created this goal have considered implications for mental health and productivity, or really only just care about the money.

Again, the question is not answered as to why these people stay?

These are similar to the points I was making above, that quality labor should be compensated for. Enjoying an activity is not a good enough excuse as to why these people shouldn't be paid. The very livelihood of these websites depends on these individuals.

If intelligent groups are what is desired, then shouldn't those who engage in coding open-source websites be paid? That is, if the creators of those websites/softwares want the best quality, shouldn't they be compensating those individuals that allow for that to be the case?

This is the first I have really learned in depth about free-labor on the Internet. After reading this article I mostly beg the question those exploited to free labor, since they are not being forced to do it, why do they still engage with it if they are never compensated? My guess is that they enjoy the work as a creative outlet, like an artist that doesn't know if their work will sell, the coder does not care about the work for a monetary outcome.

This concept has been discussed in some of my other classes I am taking this semester: that gains of other marginalized groups is what contributes to the white man's insecurity of being "left behind" or "falling behind". I think this is such an interesting dichotomy of America: that we pride ourselves on inclusion and diversity as a "melting pot", but that is not something that everyone values, appreciates or agrees with here. I just thought it was interesting too how this paper was written in 2004 and this kind of concept is still so prevalent today.

I wonder if this contention, which is present throughout the entire piece, is inspired by the thought of emotions being fleeting. I am interested in how the author would respond to cases of depression, where I don't understand how the emotion can be economic and circulatory.

I just found this to be very fascinating, as I have never thought about law like that before, but it does make a lot of sense to put it into this framework. It does seem that the livelihood and wellbeing of the criminal comes more into question in court cases rather than the victim. I wonder if this is perhaps because the deed was already done unto the victim, and the perpetrator still has a chance of life out of prison? I'm not sure, I just thought it was an interesting take to view this normal circumstance flipped on its head.

Honestly, I had a difficult time getting on board with this ideology, because as a psychology major I have always learned to appraise fear and anxiety the opposite of what is laid out here. I know fear to be a present, fleeting, fight or flight, triggering reaction to a stimulus, and I know anxiety to be the apprehension and suspense of an unforeseen event in the future to occur. I really have to disagree with this attempt to define the two, but that is really just on the basis of what I have been repeatedly taught over the past four years.

I have always felt eerily the same way about individuals who only put their flag out on American holidays. It really just seems like they are doing it to ensure that everyone knows that are not against the country, and I have always felt like they were doing it out of fear rather than pride and joy for the U.S.

I think this falls in line with the saying "it takes a village to raise a child", but in more of a fearful context. It suggests that everyone must monitor not only their adherence to the norms, but also others, to keep everyone in check. And yes, while it is okay to monitor the safety in the neighborhood, there are probably some other norms that people feel the need to follow that are not based on morals, but rather arbitrary values that do not have any affect on one's survival, like playing music too loud in car.