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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 wish that I was given a bit more background as to how people get appointed to the position of administrator. Is it the small group of people that were at the beginning of the page that allocate power over time, or are they nominated based on other qualifications?

This is exactly what I was thinking- I wonder if there was just more spam and vandalism that needed to be monitored as particular communities grew in user base, rather than suggesting the admin are actively trying to suppress/change users' ideas in favor of their own. I would be curious to further look in to how this study could be reframed to not include spam and vandalism content and instead base it on comments that didn't converge with the ideas of the admin.

Because this study lasted for such a long duration, I find it quite impressive that researchers were able to see this pattern of Michels' iron laws to be consistently present among multiple communities. I honestly am surprised that people who have a position of authority online actually exert their power in this way. It makes me question what people are in charge of online discourses today in the communities that I am a part of, and if these findings would still apply today to social media platforms like Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, etc

Are the authors implying that since there is a lack of adherence to democratic governance, wiki users will be less resistant to welcoming oligarchy into their community?

I am curious to how exactly this plays out in my life and my experience on social media. I am not sure I agree that those first few contributors consolidate power from the beginning, since it seems now that the algorithms on social media allow for greater chances to gain a following, and with that, an influence. Even on subreddits, I feel as if there is no central, small group of leaders that dominate posting and control over others' comments, unless they are the original poster. In sum, I am just curious about how and if this is seen in online communities today that I am a part of, or if I have just been blind to it the entire time.

This somewhat reminds me of the Instagram feature to block someone to no longer see their content (which would be exit) and another function to report a post from an individual, for which several options appear to voice feedback (voice-based). I wonder where else this has been implemented.

I think this is a good proposal to implement the thoughts and proposals from the users on the platform into the regulations on the sites. I believe that an established communication between users and admin would help users understand why their posts are taken down, as well as for the admin to make their presence and reasoning known to users.

This is where even the faintest idea of democracy diminishes completely. Without a say from the billions of users on an interface like Facebook, it is so obvious that implicit feudalism is taking place, and that something bad could potentially arise from lack of involvement from an astronomical amount of people that use that system.

It is a business model; the creator of the platform should have the ultimate choice in how their app functions. However, with so many users on Facebook and Reddit, there should be other people present in the decision making process to avoid groupthink and potential oversights that could be detrimental to the users of the interface.

I found this to be incredibly interesting because to say that the Internet enables equal participation and contribution for anyone that would like to is a false narrative of the Internet in general. People who have more time and appropriate resources to allocate to their digital presence, the more of what they believe will be pushed out. A conversation online is not the same as it is in real life, because people who are absent from the conversation sometimes are not given another choice but to be silenced. With that, I am intrigued to know more about what actual "kinds" of people are driving online discourse, and with that, what groups of people are being voluntarily or involuntarily excluded from online conversation.

There is definitely still a power imbalance at play here. Sysops are given the ability to terminate whole communities, while users are only given the option to leave if they'd like. Yes, there's a mutual accountability constructed, but what does the community and/or sysops lose if one or a couple members left and created their own system?

The oligarchy that is imposed by admins, seen in research from Shaw and Hill, is supported by implicit feudalism, in the sense that users feel a shared acceptance over the lack of democracy online communities promise, and do not question the admin. What I am curious to know more about is if the users are even aware of the power constructs they are being subjected to by admins, or if they do not think much about how their moderating effects their digital life. Personally, I did not know much about admins because I cannot think of an online community where an admin has made their presence known to me.

I believe it is no longer an excuse for women to be reluctant to assert their power because of men's "inherent" dominance. It is frustrating to read this article because it reflects on how much change in mindset still needs to made for women to confidently assert themselves. Women have historically entered the workplace, raised children on their own and have provided for their families, so perhaps I am confused about the lack of ability to organize a social movement among women. While I find it helpful that Freeman laid out what needs to change for the women's movement, I find it frustrating that these basics were/are not already implemented. While I don't necessarily agree with Freeman's subtle degradation of women in this piece, I do agree with her stance in that taking a unstructured approach to an important social movement is not a smart move.

Freeman is suggesting that without a common goal, the group cannot and will not make any actual progress and will instead criticize and go to war with each other. While I can see how this is present within friend groups, I would hope that members of a movement can recognize a common goal beyond and above their membership.

I agree with Freeman, and I can see how the adoption of a structureless framework for a social movement is counterproductive when attempting to articulate their issues with the current structure is miscommunicated and diluted when an elected representative is not possible. Without having a good spokesperson to relay information and issues in a tactical way, support for the movement cannot be sufficiently obtained, and therefore the movement will have little longevity and influence on society.

Being a member of a sorority I found this to be quite inaccurate, assuming and hostile, because our structure functions much like any other where people are elected to positions of power by members of the group based on what they can do rather than who they are/ how many people like them. While some members of our sorority may vote for their friends or people they like running for certain positions, it ultimately comes down to how qualified the individual is for an elected position based on previous leadership and ability to campaign for themself. It is not much different than how people outside of a sorority are elected to powerful positions.

This part, among others, I think is worth contesting because women have been in a disadvantageous position in male-dominated areas not entirely because of their own doing. While it might be easy to blame women for not having the same communication and network techniques as men that may hinder their participation in male conversation, it is also important to recognize that the ways in which men have historically viewed women as lesser and submissive influence their ability to effectively participate, as well.

I wonder if Freeman would consider this true for any system or group that considers themselves "structureless", not exclusively just the women's movement. I am also curious about what she is implying when suggesting that the individuals who advocate for "structurelessness" are the most powerful in the group, because typically those that are powerful tend to exert their power in one way or another, which would technically not work in a system that doesn't rely on any source of power.

I argue that this is not what was gratifying about participating in the online network that the WELL offered, at least not the primary reason people posted. I believe that people posted on the WELL for the same reasons they post today: to be seen, heard and understood, to feel connected and engaged in different ways than real life could and can offer.

To think of the WELL like LinkedIn seems too far-fetched of an idea, but I do understand how someone could take note of another commenter's writing and want to hire them, like in the example Turner offered. However, I would be curious to know what other work opportunities made themselves available on the WELL.

This is exactly what I was touching on earlier, that the WELL facilitated the actual communication between the network that was missing before. It is unfathomable to think that only a subculture of people were participating in this before and now it has become a part of everyday life to be connected with others over a digital medium.

It is insane to think of online accountability beginning to take its form through the WELL. It is so often touched on today that each individual that uses the internet is contributing to their online footprint, and that posts that are deleted can still linger long after. I like how this is suggesting that while people have "free speech" the same as they do in real life, what they choose to say on their website (and online in general) is lasting and has a greater sense of accountability attached to it (or at least that seems to be what Turner is implying.)

This setup reminds me most of Reddit, where there are different subreddits, or in this case discussion boards, where people can contribute their own ideas, either commenting under others' posts or beginning a new one. It is quite fascinating to think of the WELL as one of the first kinds of social media that people engaged in. Equally important, I find it important to address what groups of people (white, male, middle-to-upper class) initially engaged in online community and conversation, and how the beginnings of social media have influenced the way it is today. I also find it fascinating that there wasn't much advertising and actual shopping that stemmed from posting these products online, but rather more of a conversation about them and it is quite interesting to see how social media has flipped on its head to engage with consumer purchases and influencer marketing.

Later in this piece, Turner indicates that the Catalog actually didn't facilitate the communication of the members of this community, since commentary on the products could be submitted to the editor, but not to each other, and hence that lack of conversation sparked a new purpose for the WELL. In that sense, I am critiquing what Turner mentions here, because I argue there wasn't much of a social network around the Catalog as there was on the WELL, but rather the Catalog was more of a shared community of members that didn't know each other well, not really at all.

Nakamura would argue this isn't true, since the Internet is widely used by middle-class, white people who can afford a computer/pc and access to Internet. However, I would argue that the accessibility to Internet has expanded, and it seems to me that a great majority of marginalized groups (with the exception of those that are extremely impoverished) have access to the Internet, and therefore there is and has been the recognition and sometimes prejudice based on race to take place in the never-ending cyberspace.

I'm super lost and don't know what the "golden rule" is.

This just interests me because I have never viewed parenting quite like this. However, with technology and digital life rapidly developing and accustoming to our everyday lives, it is true that generations older than mine are left behind in understanding just how it all works, and even though they might try (using Instagram and snapchat), it will never really belong to them the way it has belonged to and shaped us.

Yes, there are many Internet users, with some degree of anonymity and plethora of information to accompany them on their online trail, but it sounds to me like cyberspace isn't much different from the real world. Fluctuating boundaries and dividing lines are consistent in real world life too. I can obviously see the difference between them that Nakamura is attempting to make, but I can also observe how not so different the real world and cyberspace are quite similar.

It's like the person gets to "try on" the marginalized other, without experiencing any form of discrimination or disadvantages the marginalized other experiences in daily life. Therefore, the "try on" process isn't an encompassing experience, just a comfortable one.

It seems obvious to me that the website should not allow identity tourism and should block off certain words relating to particular races, ethnicities, identities and cultures to inhibit them being used as tokens.

In how this is applicable to my life, I do believe that people are quick to affiliate with political parties and maybe advocate some of their beliefs to others either in person or online, however, I do not think that many members of those parties are eager to take action, like marches, but are more likely to be bystanders.

I am curious as to what specific limits people are confined to today, since it does seem there is (or was) a lack of tranquility during the pandemic, and especially last summer when the black lives matter movement heightened. Is this what De Tocqueville means? That when there is unrest and people against the government, that is when limits are less confined and when peace is seemingly out of reach?

I would argue that this is the case because many people do not want to set out on ventures of their interest by themselves and appreciate having support from others. In civil associations, there might be more at risk, but there is also more people, where a common identity is less likely to be found and therefore acted on.

I find myself doing making these spontaneous excuses, too, when someone challenges me cease my excessive use of my smartphone and other tech when I complain about how much it controls our lives. The excuses do just keep rolling in, and we don't battle back to adopting new habits and behaviors based on the new technology we buy and what everyone thinks about it, as well.

When trying to impose certain "rules" on how technological advancements should be introduced and used in our lives, it is hard to argue with the creator, who lays out the expectations for us. For example, in the trailers for the brand new iPhones, we are told what is new and how to use it, and same goes with software updates, using Alexa, etc. In applying this concept to modern-day ideology, it is quite scary to think about what lack of control we have over the technology we falsely believe we have the control over.

Within the piece, Winner mentions how what he is saying could be taken as conspiratorial. I believe this is reflecting his worry, since not every city planner, architect, or designers and manufacturers behind technological devices have malicious intentions like Moses, and may really not be aware of the disadvantages individuals may face when interacting/using with their design.

While I believe that technological advancements taking place today are associated with negative outcomes, I can't help but to question if "smart" technology really excludes anyone in particular, since such a great majority of the American population owns one. Perhaps at first it was the older population, however, it seems a lot of that older age group is catching up. This is something I'd be curious to look more into.

If only Winner knew what he was foreshadowing here! As of today, I believe a good portion of people speculate whether blind introduction of new technology is good for them, especially because we have seen such a rapid increase in recent years. Now, it seems like there is more of a conversation about welcoming new technologies into our daily lives, and more discernment over which are unnecessary and necessary. Nevertheless, I think Winner still raise a important point here, that being the general belief that new technology that is more efficient is better than the old, whether or not people can foresee the consequences.

Given the time period, this is not surprising to me, but nevertheless still very disappointing. I am very interested in how current advancements in technology are exacerbating existing problems of poverty and racial discrimination in the U.S. today. For example, I am curious how potential transitions to renewable energy will affect marginalized groups.