I think the above points are very solid and have a good flexibility to them in terms of accommodating to many people. I agree with the sentiment that using multiple personas is more inclusive in comparison to only using one persona. Another benefit to having multiple personas is that if you misrepresent your users with your single persona, you aren't putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, and still have other personas that might more accurately reflect your users.

Our group projects are a lot smaller scale compared to a company. We are somewhat limited in how many participants we can collect and compensate as a result. I know you can run into a lot of issues of bias and potential confounding variables which can be amplified in a smaller dataset. If we are making conscious choices to the people who we are picking my question would be how do we limit these things? What is commonplace for designers in this situation?

Having a design too minimal could make features confusing, especially if there is no feedback to if the user has done something correctly. But there is also an issue when your design becomes too cluttered. I'm thinking of the example mentioned with Google of how it has gotten harder to navigate with a screen reader. Different people have different ideas of what is too cluttered and too minimal so it can be hard to determine a sweet spot but that is still our goal. Also to tie into typography, the large time might be overwhelming and distract from other features, but if you have poor vision like me, it might actually be useful.

From what I'm gathering here, if you have multiple design features that you want to test, you would create a prototype that highlights each of those independently. That way, those features are isolated when you go to test your different prototypes and you can see what actually works best. I wonder if there's cases where a prototype would work better than the actual design because they are in a specific context that differs from a real world context. It's clear prototypes have limitations so what are some things you can do to ensure the design will have a similar success to the prototype?

In critiques I have received and given across my years of school, they have rarely been collaborative. I like the idea of a critique almost following a format of an interview. I think it allows the critic to get at a deeper and more impactful critique to understand why the designer included or excluded certain design features and what values where at play. I think pitching your idea to a critic also helps you understand your own design better and by very nature of collaboration --- pushes you towards new possibilities.

This is something I can really relate to as an artist and poet. Some of the best advice I have received on getting unstuck from a creative block is to just draw spirals. The action of putting pen to paper itself does something to inspire creativity. It feels less daunting when you begin to take up space on the page. I think this is a similar process with design. When you start noticing inspiration, you'll find there is no shortage of it. Writing down when you find that inspiration helps you build off of it and create even better ideas.

I hadn't previously heard of designers using personas. I could see this being helpful in conjunction with talking to actual people who would use your design. However, I do also wonder how personas are created and what goes into making them. How can you ensure they'll accurately represent the people using your design and is that part of the design process users are usually involved with as well?

I think this is super valuable insight. If you want useful design you can't design with only one person in mind. Though you can't accommodate for every person, you can design for a range of needs in mind. This does require decisions on who you are designing for and inversely, who is excluded from your designs. I also like the paragraph below that in terms of justice, the author values focusing on disadvantaged groups in design rather than those who already are accommodated by many designs already.

I think this notion can be very tricky in practice. There is a constant push for innovation and development of new technologies -- it is very encouraged from my perspective as someone from the US. I think it is a very responsible stance to not want to put a technology into the world that won't work for certain people and have the potential to deepen inequalities, however, I don't think it is very common with the interests of corporations and capitalism. It's also very difficult to weigh how this technology could benefit other groups and if that should be averted to minimize the harm to others -- how can design be made entirely universal to begin with, what are examples of universal designs?

Many of us go about our lives unaware of design and design choices. The times we really notice design is when it doesn't work for us and we deem it as "bad". This exemplifies something really interesting mentioned in the reading dealing with power and markedness. It is in a way a privilege to be unaware of design in day to day life because that means it is working for you which means the designer was thinking about how to best serve you. You were recognized in the design process. This is often not the case for marginalized groups who often face more challenges with inaccessibility. Being marked in society often translates as your needs as an afterthought compared to a given, especially with money as a driver of much of design. This reinforces power dynamics and oppression in society.

I think I am much more aware of things I was unfamiliar with. I also find myself analyzing my use of social media and social media itself with various ethical concerns. There's a lot more nuance than I recognized coming into this course and I know it will be useful to me as an individual. member of society, and potential tech worker.

I think this is why you need a diverse team behind development. Some things aren't predictable, but it's important to make things as predictable as we can before new tech is released. I think most people have good intentions but that won't negate the impacts even if unintended.

In tech development, a lot of people tend to be left out. This is because developers don't take a lot of input from a range of people with different life experiences. I think it is admirable to want to ensure everyone has equal access to a computer, but to do that, it can't be subpar and needs to work for the people who are receiving it.

I read the article and this is insanely unethical and disgusting. Meta can actively profit off of hate and violence. Personally, I think these categories should be banned because I don't see any good reason for keeping them.

I think the biggest is scope. The more people who know about what is happening, the more shame will come with it. That shame can linger through a digital footprint. It might even get on the news. People try to find more information out and end up finding things like home addresses, workplaces, family members, and other personal information which eliminates any sense of privacy. I think this is harmful when it is someone who made a reckless, but forgivable act. If it is someone who has done something unforgivable (though that does depend on personal values) then I believe in shaming to an extent but really I don't think it the most effective or ethical thing to do.

I feel like the term cancel culture/cancelled has been overused and misused in the way a lot of things have been online (ex. gaslighting). I often see it used as the antithesis of free-speech and silencing of conservative viewpoints. Sometimes I agree that people can be quick to cancelling people but other times I see it being used to push people down the alt right pipeline by saying liberals are too sensitive.

If someone is using their position of power to do harm to others in less powerful positions or just do general harm, I think there is right to push back. Harassment is a step further than pushback and while I don't necessarily agree with harassment and violence, I recognize they can be tools for change.

I see harassment all the time online. Generally it's people ganging up on others in comment sections and harassing them over something they said. I have also heard from people I went to high school with how they had had people tock them through social media. Luckily I have never experienced this, but it is so scary and I feel bad for anyone who has.

While I think crowd sourcing can be positive in some aspects, it can also blow something up and spread it across the internet. I know recently there was something online that was somewhat similar to the Justine Sacco incident where two girls were making rude gestures to someone taking a photo. People then tried to hunt down where these girls worked and other aspects of their personal lives. Something that might've once stayed in a local bubble become nationwide and even worldwide talk.

I remember in class how we discussed whether or not people should be compensated for crowd-sourcing. I personally would say people should be paid for their work. Right now I think it is seen as volunteering and a public good. The question is if people get paid, would they be hired by these companies too? Is there a cap at which someone could earn money and at what point does someone start earning money? It gets complicated. I think for research specific things it is more clear that it should be paid work.

To me this shows that if people are given a community that affirms their beliefs, they will more adamantly participate in those beliefs and spread them. Sounds pretty straightforward. This is also how we get echo chambers to form because of how many people are just agreeing with each other. I can also see people trying to seek out new communities if theirs has been banned in order to receive that same affirmation.

I think there is definitely an interesting point to be made if we should restrict certain parts of free-speech. Do we get rid of hate-speech and spam even when they are harmful? Does that contradict democracy or uphold it? I don't know that I can answer these questions as online free-speech would set precedent to a slew of things (online +in person) and requires much more knowledge than I can provide as a freshman in college lol.

I know that I have a tendency to be super critical of social media. As a result, I feel guilt when I feel I have spent too much time on social media and that that time was wasted. However, I also need to take note of the benefits. For example, I love watching DIY videos to give me inspiration for creative projects and I love being able to talk to friends who have moved to other states.

I completely agree with this. I think with social media there is a disconnect from the online you and the in person you. You can be as selective as you want with your online identity in a way that you can't do so much in person. Even though we all pretty much do this online, it can still feel very real. There is constant comparison with our online selves and others on live selves to our real life self which can create a lot of isolation and self-worth issues. I think we are starting to see the negative impacts of social media really emerging. I am starting to also see some more push back online and a sort of exhaustion when it comes to things like filters. I hope there will be a greater movement against this sort of stuff.

I've heard the term for this being called digital blackface. The expressions and gestures in the audio/video/photo are meant to be seen as comedic but are not in an appreciative way and rather a stereotype of black people. I see a lot of this particularly stereotyping black women and queer black men.

This reminds me so much of all the posts on the internet that say things like "like this post and send it to 10 friends for good luck or you will have bad luck for the rest of your life". I definitely see that as the evolution of these chain letters. It is funny to know that while the world has changed a lot since then, humans were still up to this sort of stuff.

I read this article and it was both shocking and expected. It makes sense that a company can find things about personal health/life events depending on purchase patterns. The fact that they can boil it down to a percent chance and determine when a baby is due if someone is pregnant is creepy but also makes sense. Companies can then accordingly send ads. To me, this feels like data that should not be collected. I understand that it is profitable to have targeted ads but it also feels like a major privacy concern. It is also important to note that people who are pregnant face high rates of violence. If they were living with an abuser who then found out they were pregnant through these targeted ads, it could have really awful consequences.

I know many others have the experience of thinking about something and then seeing it in their recommendations. I am not on many social media platforms so it might sound a bit dorky, but Google News gives me a lot of articles I'm interested in. I actually looked at the list of topics they save about me and it is super comprehensive to all my interests.

I didn't know what this term was before. I think design justice should be practiced by all designers. Ultimately, designers want to create a product that can work for everyone, so it is important to consult a wide array of people who have different experiences. In class, Kyle mentioned how oximeters had a harder time determining blood oxygen levels of people with dark skin which likely cost lives.

I am also diagnosed with depression and GAD. Both impact my life and can make certain things harder for me than others. I never really considered them disabilities because I think while people are more open about mental health there is still expectation to perform and push everything aside for the sake of working. When you don't have an obvious physical disability, people take it less seriously and see it as an excuse unfortunately.

I see so much of this online and it really concerns me. I feel like children are too young to consent to having information about them online. Parents might think something they are posting online is cute but there is likely not input from the child whether or not they want that shared. This is more recent, so it makes me wonder what the consequences -if any- could be later down the road. I've seen parents post their kids having a meltdown and treating it like it's funny, which just seems like it would create distrust from the child in the future.

I encounter phishing attacks on a regular basis. Usually it's pretty obvious which websites are legit and which isn't. It's more difficult to see if QR codes are malicious or not until you get to the website. I think while any one can be at risk for falling for this, I can see older people and children falling for these most. If children fall for these it also puts their parents at risk as well.

I tried this. I actually had personalized ads off, so I only got two points of data. It said I was between 18-24 (correct, I'm 19) and spoke 3 languages (incorrect, only 2). It makes me super curious what data points they look to to determine age. I'm sure if I saw a bunch of search terms I could guess the person's age, but I don't think I could do that within a 6 year period.

It interests me what can be inferred from habits. It makes me curious with that accuracy data can predict this stuff. I feel like out of this list susceptibility to finance scams and being prone to addiction would be hardest to draw out, so there must be some correlating data points.

The earlier example with the banana slicer is more light hearted and enjoyable for everyone involved. However. I think anonymity provides shelter for people to do some really cruel stuff and spread misinformation. I would say that this example is especially cruel and to me should be flagged as harassment with some sort of repercussion. I think in the future there will be more regulations for this type as stuff. In my mind, this would not fall under free speech, but I could see that as a main opposing point.

It is interesting to me to categorize these things as pre-internet trolling. I can definitely see satire common in film media and practical jokes/pranks counting as trolling. It would not have come to mind to call hazing trolling, but given the list of reasons people might troll in the previous section, they do seem to share common motives.

Definitely. I think the tweets written by Trump himself are most indicative of his character. They are more authentically representing his beliefs because they are coming directly from him, rather than a team who is calculating how to be as diplomatic as possible.

Although I left Instagram a while ago, I remember at the time seeing a bit of a switch occurring in what people would post. While people definitely still like to show off highlights, there is growing desire for authenticity - especially a nostalgic kind of authenticity that came from a pre-social media world. People began posting more unfiltered photos that feel more authentic. It doesn't feel like a production of posing and editing but rather a quick snapshot taken from someone's life - no matter how mundane.

When I look at older social media platforms vs. current platforms I notice they have much less friction (unless they have some motive like getting you to stay on ads). I think this has added to the addictiveness of social media. You get instant positive feedback with new posts and can spend hours upon hours of scrolling because it is incredibly low effort but satisfying. The term for this is "doomscrolling". I think this can have a lot of unfortunate social implications such as worsened mental health and overconsumption.

One of my favorite things to do when I'm bored is to hunt down these types of sites from the 90s-00s. On a lot of them, you can no longer read the chats. However, one of my favorites still has the user profiles where people would write a little bio about themself and share their email. There is something so personal about it and I like to think about where those people might be today.

I think there are times when questions can have simple answers, but a lot of the time it isn't so cut and dry. Trying to format things in a binary way is not always an effective model, especially when it comes to the diversity of human life and experiences.

I think this is a good point for designers of social media systems to develop more. People get left out when the data excludes them which can make the data collected as a whole misrepresentative. This can lead to even greater issues when that data is applied to something.

I think similar to the example of the donkey being used for protest, people recognize the bot as only a messenger that was given instruction by the human to perform an action. Now, that gets more complicated if you start looking into AI rather than the bots we talked about. AI draws from many different sources but ultimately still had human hands behind it.

I think this is a very interesting point to bring up. Could bots fall under free speech if they are making a political statement? Bots in general raise many questions about how they can be used and the actions of bots/ the people behind them can be morally gray. I think that points to more consideration towards regulation of some type, but how can we do that without infringing upon rights?

I think it is interesting to see how a set of values defined in ethics shapes how people within a society interact. Some of these ethical frameworks are very community oriented. Natural Rights are much more individualistic than other ethical frameworks and directly gave rise to this idea of the American Dream (life, liberty, and property).

I think the reason for this could be that ethics are not often taught alongside tech. Because tech is moving at such a rapid pace it can be hard to predict its full impact -intended or unintended. I think this is the exact reason why ethics should go hand in hand with tech. We need to think about it to minimize/prevent any harm that could arise.