One source that particularly caught my interest was Kurt Wagner's article in Vox, entitled "How Facebook collects your data even without an account." The article explores the concept of shadow profiles, in which Facebook gathers data about individuals who have never signed up for its platform, using information shared by friends or trackers embedded on other websites. I find this to be truly alarming, as it shows that we don't need our consent for data collection and storage; our information can still be collected simply because we exist within another's digital circle. I find it hard to believe privacy can ever truly exist in today's hyperconnected world. I think this poses a unique challenge to the concept of informed consent in tech; how can we truly consent if we're unaware that data is being collected on us? This highlights the need for increased transparency and user control, particularly among non-users who don't even have an option to opt out.

"This experience deeply disturbed me as it highlights how data and targeted advertising can be misused to manipulate political behavior and suppress democratic participation. It caused me to reflect upon how social media platforms, often presented as neutral tools, can become powerful agents of harm when left unregulated. We had discussed earlier in class about algorithmic bias - how systems designed for profit may unintentionally or intentionally perpetuate discrimination - which begs the question, should we have stronger regulations not just regarding what data is collected but how it's permitted to be used? Even when users give consent they rarely understand all consequences fully.

Reading Wikipedia's entry about the FBI-King suicide letter gave me greater insight into just how far the FBI went in their attempt to discredit Martin Luther King Jr. This article details how, in 1964, the FBI issued an anonymous letter advising King to end his life before accepting the Nobel Peace Prize - as part of a calculated psychological attack designed to compromise both his reputation and wellbeing. Jaboukie Young-White's trolling tweet impersonating the FBI to call out their role in King's harassment is all the more striking and historical; its relevance makes its humor sharper and deeper layered, showing its significance in protesting abuse of power. This contextually makes its comedy even sharper and deeper; showing just how effective trolling can be as an activist protest tool.

"Advancing an Argument / Making a Point" really caught my attention, specifically with Jaboukie's portrayal of FBI Agents on MLK Day. While technically trolling, this post also served as a powerful form of protest that brought to light the FBI's longstanding mistreatment of Martin Luther King Jr. I was struck by how trolling, when used strategically for political ends, can actually advance conversations rather than hinder them. It raised an interesting question for me can trolling ever be seen as legitimate tool of activism when used to critique power structures or historical injustice? In cases such as these it seems more like intentional satire than outright trolling for fun. Intention plays an enormous role in how we interpret acts such as these.

The YouTube video by The Take, "A Tale of Two Jennifer Lawrences", gives an in-depth account of Jennifer Lawrence's public persona evolution over time, from being seen as relatable and approachable, to facing criticism for appearing overly performative or curated. This transition illustrates the complexity of authenticity discussed in the chapter. In particular, Lawrence's early clumsiness and self-deprecating humor (such as her accidental trip at the Oscars ) allowed her to appear more genuine to fans. As she continued to present this image in interviews and appearances, people started questioning whether her claim of relatability was simply another Hollywood act. This adds credence to the reading's concept that even performances of vulnerability may come across as inauthentic once an audience recognizes that they were calculated. It raises an interesting question: If authenticity can be manufactured through performance, is there any way of verifying its "realness?"

I found the section about how institutions conceal our trust really engaging, making me consider just how much trust is taken for granted in everyday interactions. As I shop food at my grocery store, I rarely consider its safety; rather, it is assumed by labeling and regulations. But in smaller communities with less regulation or administrative oversight, trust must be developed between people without institutional rules acting as a buffer. This incident makes me reflect on how online platforms, with less enforceable "truth" standards like YouTube, can create an unexpected tension around authenticity. Viewers felt they had formed an emotional bond with lonelygirl15; finding out it had been staged felt like an insult. But perhaps this indicates we are too quickly forming emotional bonds with content that feels personal but nonetheless lies on a platform where people perform?

I found this FTC report particularly eye-opening because it demonstrates how large tech giants like Facebook can work to eliminate competition rather than spur innovation. According to the FTC, Facebook employed a "buy-or-bury" strategy by purchasing rising competitors such as Instagram and WhatsApp or copying and undermining them if they refused to sell. This quote is striking as it illustrates how social media as a platform for innovation and community has been hampered by monopolistic behavior by companies prioritizing control and dominance over user experience.

This part was very shocking for me; I found it disquieting that an anonymous group could coordinate attacks to hurt or offend others and treat it like a game. This made me reflect on how online spaces can encourage people to lose empathy when there's no accountability or prevent this kind of behavior without restricting free speech; similar to our discussions in class about the responsibility of platform design when anonymous platforms allow cruelty rather than actual freedom.

One source that stood out was [d28] Anna Lauren Hoffmann's article, "Data Violence and How Bad Engineering Choices Can Damage Society". Hoffmann highlights how seemingly neutral data systems, such as forms, algorithms, and digital tools, can cause significant harm by silencing or misrepresenting marginalized identities. She provides an impactful example regarding gender selection options on digital forms, which fail to account for non-binary individuals by offering binary male/female choices as options, effectively erasing their identities in data collection processes. This links back to a central theme of this chapter, which is that all data is an oversimplification of reality and that these simplifications may not always be benign. It prompted me to reconsider my ethical responsibilities as an engineer and designer and consider who may have been left out or misrepresented within this system. Furthermore, this source broadened my understanding that data and design decisions don't just impact technology; they have deep ramifications for society as a whole.

One aspect of this chapter that struck a chord was its statement, "All data is a simplification of reality." This reminded me how often we treat numbers, particularly numerical data, as objective truths when they reflect personal choices, assumptions, and definitions. As evidenced in the debate surrounding Twitter bots, even one percent can be interpreted and calculated in multiple ways depending on who defines who qualifies as "user" or "bot." I found it fascinating how invisible simplifications often define our world; for instance, GPA or test scores represent student performance without providing a fuller picture. I find this concept essential for comprehending data ethics, mainly when used to make decisions that impact people's lives. Furthermore, it makes me question how often we accept simplified data at face value without asking ourselves the following question: What information am I leaving out?

This article presents how the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project sought to provide low-cost laptops to children in developing countries to enhance education, yet ultimately failed in doing so. According to key details from its source material, these innovatively designed devices lacked basic infrastructure like electricity or internet and there was little training or support provided for teachers on how to utilize these devices effectively despite its best intentions. This mismatch between its vision and actual needs of communities underscores why local voices must be part of global technology solutions.

I find it fascinating how people used to interact online by typing commands just to read or reply to messages--imagine trying to navigate social media today that way! While our user-friendly platforms may make for easier interactions today, I feel early BBS communities could have felt deeper due to being part of it required real effort for membership compared with today's fast-scrolling platforms that only allow casual access.

This line hit home for me. My great-uncle developed dementia, and my family struggled with making decisions regarding when and how to intervene respectfully. After using the Care Ethics framework, I realized ethical decisions aren't just about abstract rules or outcomes but about honoring relationships and emotional bonds that exist. Yet American Indigenous ethics valued lived experience over abstract logic. Listening to stories and shared wisdom when making tough choices helped guide these discussions more holistically. Can combining those frameworks help us approach care more holistically?

This line hit home for me. My great-uncle developed dementia, and my family struggled with making decisions regarding when and how to intervene respectfully. After using the Care Ethics framework, I realized ethical decisions aren't just about abstract rules or outcomes but about honoring relationships and emotional bonds that exist. Yet American Indigenous ethics valued lived experience over abstract logic. Listening to stories and shared wisdom when making tough choices helped guide these discussions more holistically. Can combining those frameworks help us approach care more holistically?

Pragmatic Ethics should also be considered. This approach sees ethical principles as dynamic constructs shaped by social progress and practical outcomes. As opposed to static frameworks, pragmatic ethics emphasizes adaptability and experiential learning. This fits perfectly with Bluesky users' dynamic nature, shaping their ethical landscape through real-world interactions and feedback, exemplifying its core principles of pragmatic ethics.