“Tendency to continue to surf or scroll through bad news, even though that news is saddening, disheartening, or depressing. Many people are finding themselves reading continuously bad news about COVID-19 without the ability to stop or step back.”
The human struggle many of us have is the reason for this difficulty in breaking from a constant stream of COVID-19 news. It underlines the agony of having to constantly absorb such disturbing information, which can have a serious impact on our health.
Unclear Privacy Rules: Sometimes privacy rules aren’t made clear to the people using a system. For example: If you send “private” messages on a work system, your boss might be able to read them. When Elon Musk purchased Twitter, he also was purchasing access to all Twitter Direct Messages
Unclear privacy rules can lead to a lot of misunderstandings and dishonesty. It’s like of an individual was having a private conversation with a friend at work but the boss was able to still see it. It creates a hostile environment to work in. Same thing goes for social media platforms like twitter. With Elon Musk now able to see private messages on there. It makes me not want to use that side of twitter.
From a security perspective there are many risks that a company faces, such as: Employees at the company misusing their access, like Facebook employees using their database permissions to stalk women Hackers finding a vulnerability and inserting, modifying, or downloading information. For example: hackers stealing the names, Social Security numbers, and birthdates of 143 million Americans from Equifax hackers posting publicly the phone numbers, names, locations, and some email addresses of 530 million Facebook users, or about 7% of all people on Earth
This is a very problematic issue. Having to face dangerous situations like having your SSN, home address, phone numbers being leaked is scary. Making having technology that is able to store data of millions of individuals at once is very daunting.
People in the antiwork subreddit found the website where Kellogg’s posted their job listing to replace the workers. So those Redditors suggested they spam the site with fake applications, poisoning the job application data, so Kellogg’s wouldn’t be able to figure out which applications were legitimate or not (we could consider this a form of trolling). Then Kellogg’s wouldn’t be able to replace the striking workers, and they would have to agree to better working conditions. Then Sean Black, a programmer on TikTok saw this and decided to contribute by creating a bot that would automatically log in and fill out applications with random user info, increasing the rate at which he (and others who used his code) could spam the Kellogg’s job applications:
I feel like this version of data poisoning is very interesting. It’s a way for others to stand against the power and have a way to control the situation. Without having to go out and protest they can just sabotaged their job listing so they have no other way of making money.
Social media sites then make their money by selling targeted advertising, meaning selling ads to specific groups of people with specific interests. So, for example, if you are selling spider stuffed animal toys, most people might not be interested, but if you could find the people who want those toys and only show your ads to them, your advertising campaign might be successful, and those users might be happy to find out about your stuffed animal toys. But targeting advertising can be used in less ethical ways, such as targeting gambling ads at children, or at users who are addicted to gambling, or the 2016 Trump campaign ‘target[ing] 3.5m black Americans to deter them from voting’
I’ve actually been wondering about this for awhile now. I always found it strange that I had always seen ads for different make up brands. But now I understand that, it was a way of data mining. By taking data like what I’ve watched and and things I’ve liked. They can then give me ads I would be interested in.
As this class discusses trolling, as well as many of the other topics of social media behavior coming up in the weeks ahead, you are encouraged to bear this duality of value in mind. Trolling is a term given to describe behavior that aims to disrupt (among other things). To make value judgments or ethical judgments about instances of disruptive behavior, we will need to be thoughtful and nuanced about how we decide to pass judgments. One way to begin examining any instance of disruptive behavior is to ask what is being disrupted: a pattern, a habit, a norm, a whole community? And how do we judge the value of the thing being disrupted? Returning to the difference between a coup and a revolution, we might say that a national-level disruption is a coup if it fails, and a revolution if it succeeds. Or we might say that such a disruption is a coup if it intends to disrupt a legitimate instance of political domination/statehood, but a revolution if the instance of political domination is illegitimate. If you take a close look at English-language headlines in the news about uprisings occurring near to or far from here, it should become quickly apparent that both of these reasons can drive an author’s choice to style an event as a coup. To understand what the author is trying to say, we need to look inside the situation and see what assumptions are driving their choice to characterize the disruption in the way that they do.
This passage truly resonates with me since it emphasizes the need for nuanced judgment while handling disruptive activities like trolling. By drawing parallels between national-level disruptions and revolutions, it is important to consider the legitimacy and goals of the disruption. It serves as a reminder to examine such situations critically, looking past the apparent labels to properly comprehend the context and underlying assumptions. providing us with a deeper or more precise understanding in circumstances such as these.
In the 2000s, trolling went from an activity done in some communities to the creation of communities that centered around trolling such as 4chan (2003), Encyclopedia Dramatica (2004), and some forums on Reddit (2005). These trolling communities eventually started compiling half-joking sets of “Rules of the Internet” that both outlined their trolling philosophy:
Social medias evolution of trolling or trolls has evolved by a lot. I feel as tho it’s extremity and severity has only shot up in the years. With social medias accessibility to change and hide behind a fake profile. There are no consequences to anyone’s actions. Simply saying that whatever they do online won’t affect them in real life.
We can next ask if authentic self-expression is a good thing or not. But that depends, what is the authentic thing about yourself that you would be expressing?
This paragraph is a bit tricky. Nonetheless authentic self expression is dependent on what we define as moral. Which is different for everyone. Which in the end still creates conflict because it’s still very easy to fake who you are.
Many people were upset at being deceived, and at the many levels of inauthenticity of Dr. McLaughlin’s actions, such as:
This is very disturbing to see in all honesty. How far technology has come to the point where it has become fairly easy for individuals to create whole personalities, people and ethnicities all online. This type of inauthenticity can cause a lot of harm in its wider popularity. It creates false truths and devices the minds of others. I do believe that most of everything on social media is fake. But with groups and organizations that are built towards benefiting marginalized communities. I believe that they should be there to benefit and with all the lying and misinformation that spread how will anyone be able to gain genuine support?
One famous example of reducing friction was the invention of infinite scroll. When trying to view results from a search, or look through social media posts, you could only view a few at a time, and to see more you had to press a button to see the next “page” of results. This is how both Google search and Amazon search work at the time this is written. In 2006, Aza Raskin invented infinite scroll, where you can scroll to the bottom of the current results, and new results will get automatically filled in below. Most social media sites now use this, so you can then scroll forever and never hit an obstacle or friction as you endlessly look at social media posts. Aza Raskin regrets what infinite scroll has done to make it harder for users to break away from looking at social media sites.
Aza Raskin introduction of the infinite scroll in 2006, completely reshaped and changed how we navigate the internet for content. With the infinite scroll. You can finally scroll down smoothly and fresh content will load immediately, saving you the trouble of clicking to turn to the next page. Making it easier and more accessible for more people to locate content online, wherever it may be. Although it provides a seamless experience, its extensive usage in social media has come under fire for making it more difficult for users to leave these platforms. While constant scrolling can lead to prolonged usage of online platforms, I also think that you have the freedom to put down your phone. making it less dangerous than it would seem.
In the first decade of the 2000s the way websites worked on the Internet went through a transition to what is called “Web 2.0.” In Web 2.0 websites (and web applications), the communication platforms and personal profiles merged. Many websites now let you create a profile, form connections, and participate in discussions with other members of the site. Platforms for hosting content without having to create your own website (like Blogs) emerged. And all of these websites became much more interactive, with updates appearing on users’ screens without the user having to request them.
The Web 2.0 was a jump start towards a new version or era of social media. It now made it easier for individuals to communicate and integrate with one another. As well as allow them to share parts of their lives without doing all the work of making a blog.
As you can see in the apple example, any time we turn something into data, we are making a simplification.1 If we are counting the number of something, like apples, we are deciding that each one is equivalent. If we are writing down what someone said, we are losing their tone of voice, accent, etc. If we are taking a photograph, it is only from one perspective, etc.
Simplifying any sort of data can cause a shift in its honesty. Whether it is accidental or intentional. An individual can never truly make a data 100% to what it is to everyone else. We can only get it as close as we can without disrupting it with any sort of biases we have.
Think for a minute about consequentialism. On this view, we should do whatever results in the best outcomes for the most people. One of the classic forms of this approach is utilitarianism, which says we should do whatever maximizes ‘utility’ for most people. Confusingly, ‘utility’ in this case does not refer to usefulness, but to a sort of combo of happiness and wellbeing. When a utilitarian tries to decide how to act, they take stock of all the probable outcomes, and what sort of ‘utility’ or happiness will be brought about for all parties involved. This process is sometimes referred to by philosophers as ‘utility calculus’. When I am trying to calculate the expected net utility gain from a projected set of actions, I am engaging in ‘utility calculus’ (or, in normal words, utility calculations).
It’s pretty interesting considering consequentialism and utilitarianism both aim for a high or favorable outcomes. When economic results can also be taken into an account when calculating utility, in addition to happiness and well-being. It shifts this conversation to emphasizes the complexity of ethics and the need of taking into account a range of viewpoints and cultural quirks in order to maximize value and general well-being when making decisions.