This story is absolutely wild. A woman named BethAnn pretended on Twitter to be a Native American queer woman who was a professor at ASU and who was a victim of sexual harassment. She used the account for her own personal gain. She used it to give credibility to herself (the fake account would post praise about BethAnn), lead MeTooSTEM, and even raise $75k through a gofundme. One day BethAnn announced that the woman behind the account had died of Covid and she even held a funeral for her. This level of deception is insane. It shows that of course, we can't believe everything we see on the Internet. It also serves as a warning to us of the level of deceit and manipulation that the Internet can be used to create.

This idea plays out often in short-form video content (such as TikTok, Youtube shorts, or Instagram reels). Creators like hayleyybaylee and janeinsane exemplify this idea. They made sarcastic and satirical videos that at first appear to be reality. Hayleyybaylee makes videos about a day in her life as a "billionaire's girlfriend," where she does absurd tasks around her fancy New York apartment dressed in full glam. Janeinsane makes videos about Utah moms. She exaggerates their stereotypical qualities (for instance, using Stanley cups). Both creators are playful and fun, and their audiences aren't mad that they aren't completely authentic. The purpose of their content isn't to inform or teach, it's simply to make others laugh. That is where it's excusable to let authenticity slide.

To summarize this article, user friction is anything that prevents someone from using the website or app in the way that it is intended and how they want. Emotional friction occurs when the user has a complex negative emotional reaction caused by the site and is hindered from completing the task. Interaction friction happens when the site is not easy to navigate. Cognitive friction is when the site isn't setup in the way that a user is used to, and so they give up on trying to figure out the new terms.

This makes me wonder, should we have restrictions on what can be posted on social media? Isn't that taking away freedom of speech? Is it the CEO's responsibility to ensure that the social media site is being used for good? Does the CEO carry that burden, or is it on the individual users?

This article explains that during the super bowl in 2024, 75% of X's site visits were bots. This is wild to me. It makes me wonder, are social media sites like X even worth it anymore? If the vast majority of users are bots, we aren't even interacting with other humans anymore and the purpose of social media (to connect and share) is lost.

Before reading this, I had never thought of this situation (the woman posting with kids from a different country) in this way before. However, it's so true. The woman should not be posting a child without their consent. Additionally, posting about the trip and taking advantage of the kids in that way almost devalues the original purpose of the trip. It makes me question the woman's motives. Did she really go abroad to raise money and help out? Or did she just want to take photos so the world would know she was a good person who goes abroad and volunteers. It's important to remember that social media is only one side of the picture. We see only what the person is showing us, not their intention behind it.

In this source, Jeong discussed how a bot quickly became racist, even though it had filters on certain words it could say. This brought up the idea of context. The bot could be told not to use specific words (like slurs), but it had no awareness of how normal words (she used the example "boy") could turn offensive or racist depending on the context. This is an interesting problem that highlights humanity's complexity. What is right and wrong to a computer might be gray and nuanced in real life. When surfing on the internet, we need to remember that real life has depth, context, and emotions.

This makes me wonder...how many online accounts are actually bots? Is social media completely inauthentic? Are we all getting angry at or being led by bots run by people simply trying to make a profit?

Social media is a way to create the life that we idealize. People post their best angles, biggest smiles, and cutest moments. They leave out the tears, bad hair days, and long commutes to work on a musty bus. Social media contains some snapshots of "real life," but cannot complete the picture. Online, people also become their most bold selves (debating people on topics they would be too scared to in mention person). Social media is a mechanism to tell people your top 1% is you 100% of the time.

This idea that the Internet only amplifies what is already happening in "real life" fascinates and surprises me. Can nothing new be created on the internet? Is the Internet all a reflection of other movements happening face to face? Can't people collaborate in new ways online that they otherwise could not have in person?