Not necessarily because of this class, but I guess in combination. I have slowly learned to not engage with trolls or politics online because there is literally no point. No one goes into an argument online to actually change their position (at least most people don't.)

I love looking at old comments like this. We really do just recycle the same old stuff in politics. What once was writing became television, which became video games, which then became phones.

I guess I never thought of this, but I guess that surprises me regardless. In a way, it makes sense, but obviously that isn't necessarily a good thing. It definitely makes coding somewhat inequitable if english isn't a language you speak.

This is why businesses are just so ethical (please note the heavy sarcasm). We literally just put business (profit) above people's actual lives.

Honestly, maybe a controversial opinion but I do not feel like "cancel culture" is a real thing, but has instead become a buzzword for people who are being publicly criticized (usually for sexual assault/harassment, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc etc). It's a good way to deflect these valid criticisms and instead make it into a culture war, because everybody knows politics like this are a great way to distract people from the real problems.

In cases where people don't "deserve" it, I would say thats just public shaming/harassment, not "cancel culture" ... cancel culture is not a real phenomenon, it's a buzz word. And actually, most people who are "targeted" by cancel culture are never actually canceled, they end up staying the same or growing in popularity. Those who are effectively canceled often are members of minority groups, regardless of whether they did right or wrong, most often queer or disabled "creators"

I 100% agree with this. Yeah, it might not be that serious in every case, but I hate this new phenomenon of purposely upsetting kids for tiktok/youtube/etc ... especially because the type of parents to do this likely do it more than just once. Once, it may be funny. Repetitively? It's just kind of bullying. I think posting it online is especially harmful because it publicizes it, and honestly, for the parent, it probably reinforces the behavior. There is a reason a lot of family channels these days get exposed for being abusive, horrible people.

That is actually so weird. I am not a fan of the monarchy but literally just who has the time for that? I mean that's very obsessive and, quite frankly, if you dislike someone that much, I feel like you probably need some therapy. All the time and effort put into that is so unhealthy.

I think most people have had some sort of experience with harassment on social media, just some have had more experience with it than others. I've unfortunately dealt with some online harassment from former classmates, and some general online harassment from strangers but luckily nothing too severe.

Yeahhh, this can never go well. This happened recently with the Idaho murders & Brian Kohberger.

Though sometimes there are rather interesting cases from these, like when redditors identified a car in a hit and run of a bicyclist and then police were able to arrest a guy for it. I guess it really depends on how extreme it is. In this case, they never found someone to harass online, they just found a car (and then someone called the police when they saw it). This story was local, as well. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45194123

Y'know, this does not feel very ethical. I hope this is a side-gig for most people rather than an actual job.

Actually, my phone autoblocks certain numbers now if they're certain the number is a spam number. My Dad somehow got caught in this filter because it was too strong, and we had to send an email to their moderation team to say "hey, why am i listed as a spam number?" and I had to turn it off for a while. It's actually really interesting - and helpful. Spam calls are now immediately blocked instead of showing "potential spam" ... they've also worked on identifying actual healthcare numbers, which is helpful.

I feel like even trained moderators struggle to do things correctly. I notice there is a lack of consistency in a lot of the moderation on sites like twitter, facebook, instagram or discord. I think part of that is probably because the site is so big (and that each moderator has some implicit biases)

I think twitter did an absolutely horrible job attempting to do this with "hidden replies" - now they end up being kind of pinned because people are curious to see what is in there, that it unintentionally platforms those replies. So much so that there's accounts dedicated to checking the content of the hidden replies if people are too scared to open it (for fear of seeing something like gore, porn, etc.)

This is what caused the "adpocalypse" on YouTube - too much attention was brought to the site having child porn and pro-terrorist content that a lot of advertisers pulled out. It was a big deal at the time, but honestly now that time has passed, it feels like not much has changed, but maybe that's because we adapted to it.

I feel like this has unfortunately become so common in daily life, and it's... kind of difficult when you trauma. You might be on social media or walking down the street, and you're at risk to hearing people, often casually, talking about their trauma - and while I don't think people should hide it, there are appropriate places to share it, and a public space where anyone can overhear you isn't necessarily one of them.

I think the dark "humor" of today is the same, people casually joking about messed up stuff, like wanting to "end it" ... there is a time and place for that stuff, you don't know what people are going through and if they're okay hearing that.

I fully agree with this. A detox might be necessary every once in a while, but I think it's important to learn how to use social media in a way that is good for our health, because ultimately there are good things about social media, too.

See, I understand how this happens on the internet, people are anonymous, and people can view it as "less harmful" (which may or may not be true depending on the circumstances) but how this happened in real live does baffle me a bit. Of course there are other factors, like voter turnout, a bit of voter fraud and ad manipulation, but sometimes the 2016 seems like a prank that has gone on way too long.

Reading this and the Wikipedia article is interesting to me - I didn't think this was a phenomenon before the internet. I wonder what the real purpose of these letters are, is it the satisfaction of the "virality?"

I find a lot of these chain mail type posts pray on the vulnerable - especially people with anxiety, OCD, or psychosis - and I hate seeing people spread them like they don't have a real consequence for some people, as "silly" as that sounds.

Also, I think it depends on context: sometimes I don't want my friends or contacts to see my social media account. A big part of social media is the anonymity, and even when you don't allow access to contacts, it still recommends your contacts to you, whether based on proximity or otherwise.

I'll have to read the article in a bit but I wonder how they would go about accomplishing it. I hate Musk, but I also know that, realistically speaking, that is how algorithms tend to work. They want your engagement, so they pay attention to how long you look at something, what you like, qrts/rts. and comments.

This is why I'm such a huge fan of blocking & muting on social media. Some people complain "Ohhh, you're making an echo chamber!!!" Okay? I'm here for fun, I'm not obligated to listen or pay attention to anything. Why would I sit here and purposely make myself angry, stressed, upset, etc.? Sounds miserable.

That's actually so shocking to me - like how does that happen? Obviously there is a LOT of racism in tech, but I never would've thought of this being an issue. Generally, I've assumed that these work based on motion sensors (and many of them probably do) but wow... that is a huge oversight.

I feel like the EU's regulations for privacy have been so much more helpful than any regulation in the U.S. - and I'm glad the internet is universal so I have access to these privacy options as well. The U.S. lacks so much regulation for the "rights" of companies and "freedom" that people don't have the freedom to be protected or private, which makes our "freedoms" a bit... lacking.

Ironically I feel like the internet has made "private discussions" way less private. People are way more likely to share things that are embarrassing or even emotional than they were before, partially due to the anonymity of the internet. Myself included, really. I share a lot of "embarrassing" things online that I probably wouldn't say in person unless we were really close. Part of it, I think, is connection, and another part of it, for me at least, is humor.

I'm struggling to understand how this works - primarily how the number is generated. I understand that it's using the word "love" and "hate" but what determines how powerful they are and... quite frankly no one talks like they do in the examples. It'll probably make more sense reading further but it does seem kind of silly to me.

Oddly enough, my google account still has my ad personalization turned off because I'm "under 18" - though my birthday was 2 months ago now. I have generally been turning off ad personalization & as much data collection / cookie information lately.

In another example, people did this with an abortion "tip site" set up in, I believe, Texas. They sent copypastas, random images, just blatantly false tips, in order to flood the site, crash it, and make it difficult to find real tips.

That's such a different type of "trolling" from today, and honestly - it's a bit stupid. Like wow, haha, they responded to your question trying to be helpful! You are so much better for happening to know things! It's so weird. Today, you'll kinda see similar behavior in adults making fun of kids for not knowing things (often their own kids) and it's so dumb considering... people don't automatically know things! You didn't know how to do that thing, once!

While it's not exactly right to have your private messages leaked, I have always thought it's best to speak like they may be. Because they might be. Even if it doesn't get posted publicly, the other person might show it to a mutual friend, or someone else, for a variety of reasons, some good. some bad.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist here, but... the way people blindly trust institutions is bizarre. You shouldn't trust a company to do something just because "it's illegal not to" especially when there may be incentives to not follow said standards.

Oh no. Well now I guess we know why 4chan is like... that

I guess I just realized this is an early form of sites like "Omegle" and that's really interesting because a lot of sites like this are definitely viewed in a negative light because of sexual predators. Some of it has to do with bots, too. It's interesting how our view of things like chatrooms have changed.

I think this is still a "layout" used now. Like you could easily make a forum look the exact same way - not just including the general layout, but like as a "Template" for someone making forums. Though, I think many prominent forums try and make their own layouts now.

I know that the dominant company for email has changed, people have cycled though net 0, yahoo, and gmail, for example, but it's interesting to know that email has lasted for such a long time. I wonder what has allowed it to exist for so long. Clearly it's useful, but I would think maybe the "network" would change, yet there is still compatibility between all/most email accounts.

I actually found this "banned" animation (not really - it just wasn't supposed to air in the first place) that aired on SNL last minute in 1998 called "Media-opoly" about how all the news companies were owned by the same 3 companies. It felt really dystopian to watch, but interesting as someone who wasn't alive then.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh6Hf5_ZYPI

I always think about this when I watch the news in times of some global crisis - war, natural disasters, etc. Most people likely won't know who that specific person is, so maybe it's not a physical safety issue, but we are quite literally taking a photo (or video) of them at their worst moment to be preserved forever, and possibly shown to the public. I certainly wouldn't be okay with that, but there also isn't any protection for you if you're in public (at least in the United States).

This is why you always have to be specific in defining terminology whenever you do a study. Words mean different things to different people, and like this example, some people may consider a term to mean one thing, and another person might assume it doesn't fit that word.

While some bots can be bad, I think there are plenty of useful or fun bots that increase engagement and time spent on the app. For example, when twitter had the "bot" that tweeted where Elon's private jet was, it increased the engagement for the day as people continued to share it and talk about it - although it did eventually get taken down, it still helped twitter profit... just at the expense of Elon Musk, who had just become the CEO.

I've seen this used online and was kinda confused by this use of the term, but that actually helps explain it a bit. I had the same thought - "well, they're not bots, this account is clearly run by a person" - even if the account seemed to be clearly run by a troll. I also kinda notice the word seems to be used to discredit others online (especially in politics) that they disagree with, which is why the term confused me a bit, like I'm not a bot just because you disagree with me.

I see existentialism as a branch of nihilism, and I think in modern times the two have become somewhat intertwined, many using them somewhat interchangeably. Existentialism seems to be an extension of nihilism, as stated in the text, where it begins with the fundamental idea that morality is not a set definition.

I personally find Existentialism to be the most "scientific" or "realistic" perspective (though, again, it is perspective) as we know morality is a human construct, and a social construct, which varies based on where you grew up.

Writing this, I now wonder if Existentialism should be a prefix (or suffix) because you may believe in Existentialism but end up practicing a specific moral principle (ie natural rights or virtue ethics)

I think they probably didn't even think about it - like he wrote, it's "only 'can we do this?' never 'should we do this' ..." The people who he talks to present their tech, likely excited about the new innovation, rather than thinking about the things that could go wrong.

It's also possible that they DID see what could go wrong - but when you're trying to sell something, are you going to highlight those factors? The dismissive response given really seems to add to this - they're trying to sell you a product, and while they aren't going to openly tell people to use the product for something bad, chances are they don't really care as long as it doesn't backfire on them, because it means more money for them