“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.”

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

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

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:

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’

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.

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:

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?

Many people were upset at being deceived, and at the many levels of inauthenticity of Dr. McLaughlin’s actions, such as:

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.

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.

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.

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).