32 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2026
    1. But even people who thought they were doing something good regretted the consequences of their creations, such as Eli Whitney who hoped his invention of the cotton gin would reduce slavery in the United States, but only made it worse, or Alfred Nobel who invented dynamite (which could be used in construction or in war) and decided to create the Nobel prizes, or Albert Einstein regretting his role in convincing the US government to invent nuclear weapons, or Aza Raskin regretting his invention infinite scroll.

      From a deontological perspective, developers have a duty to think about whether technology should be created, not just whether it can be created. The reading references the idea that inventors sometimes focus only on technical possibilities without considering ethical consequences.

    2. # Many people like to believe (or at least convince others) that they are doing something to make the world a better place, as in this parody clip from the Silicon Valley show (the one Kumail Nanjiani was on, though not in this clip):

      From a utilitarian perspective, developers should consider the possible consequences of technology before creating it. The reading explains that many technologies were invented with good intentions but later created unexpected negative effects.

    1. Additionally, Zuckerberg also, ignores how he and Meta (and larger industry and world powers) might have exploited people in rural India and be partly responsible for the poverty there. { requestKernel: true, binderOptions: { repo: "binder-examples/jupyter-stacks-datascience", ref: "master", }, codeMirrorConfig: { theme: "abcdef", mode: "python" }, kernelOptions: { kernelName: "python3", path: "./ch20_colonialism" }, predefinedOutput: true } kernelName = 'python3'

      It is true that colonial powers often had technological or economic advantages that allowed them to dominate other regions. However, having more power or technology does not necessarily mean that a society is culturally or morally superior.

    1. While we’ve been talking about capitalism and social media platforms, we also want to look at the world of programming as well. In particular, we want to highlight how the profession of programming went from being a disrespected, low-pay job for women, to being a highly respected and high paying job for men.

      One thing that stood out to me in this reading is how the status of programming changed over time depending on who was doing the work. Early in the history of computing, programming was often considered routine or secondary work, and it was mostly done by women.

    1. Do you think there are situations where reconciliation is not possible?

      Reconciliation may be impossible or morally inappropriate when:

      The harm is irreversible (mass death, genocide, permanent trauma).

      The wrongdoer denies responsibility or keeps harming people.

      Survivors are not safe or do not want contact.

      Power is still unequal (the perpetrator still has control).

      In those cases, the best outcome might be accountability + prevention, not “making peace.”

    1. Jennifer Jacquet argues that shame can be morally good as a tool the weak can use against the strong: The real power of shame is it can scale. It can work against entire countries and can be used by the weak against the strong. Guilt, on the other hand, because it operates entirely within individual psychology, doesn’t scale. […] We still care about individual rights and protection. Transgressions that have a clear impact on broader society – like environmental pollution – and transgressions for which there is no obvious formal route to punishment are, for instance, more amenable to its use. It should be reserved for bad behaviour that affects most or all of us. […] A good rule of thumb is to go after groups, but I don’t exempt individuals, especially not if they are politically powerful or sizeably impact society. But we must ask ourselves about the way those individuals are shamed and whether the punishment is proportional. Jennifer Jacquet: ‘The power of shame is that it can be used by the weak against the strong’ 18.3.2. Schadenfreude# Another way of considering public shaming is as schadenfreude, meaning the enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others. A 2009 satirical article from the parody news site The Onion satirizes public shaming as being for objectifying celebrities and being entertained by their misfortune: Media experts have been warning for months that American consumers will face starvation if Hollywood does not provide someone for them to put on a pedestal, worship, envy, download sex tapes of, and then topple and completely destroy. Nation Demands Fresh Celebrity Meat - The Onion 18.3.3. Normal People# While the example from The Onion above focuses on celebrity, in the time since it was written, social media has taken a larger role in society and democratized celebrity. As comedian Bo Burnham puts it: “[This] celebrity pressure I had experienced on stage has now been democratized and given to everybody [through social media]. And everyone is feeling this pressure of having an audience, of having to perform, of having a sort of, like, proper noun version of your own name and then the self in your heart.” (NPR Fresh Air Interview) Also, Rebecca Jennings worries about how public shaming is used against “normal” people who are plucked out of obscurity to be shamed by huge crowds online: “Millions of people became invested in this (niche! not very interesting!) drama because it gives us something easy to be angry or curious or self-righteous about, something to project our own experiences onto, and thereby contributing even more content to the growing avalanche. Naturally, some decided to go look up the central character’s address, phone number, and workplace and share it on the internet. […] ‘It’s on social media, so it’s public!’ one could argue as a case for people’s right to act like forensic analysts on social media, and that is true. But this justification is typically valid when a) the person posting is someone of note, like a celebrity or a politician, and b) when the stakes are even a little bit high. In most cases of normal-person canceling, neither standard is met. Instead, it’s mob justice and vigilante detective work typically reserved for, say, unmasking the Zodiac killer, except weaponized against normal people. […] Platforms like TikTok, where even people with few or no followers often go viral overnight, expedite the shaming process. Stop canceling normal people who go viral 18.3.4. Enforcing Norms# In the philosophy paper Enforcing Social Norms: The Morality of Public Shaming, Paul Billingham and Tom Parr discuss under what conditions public shaming would be morally permissible. They are concerned not with actions primarily intended to induce shame in the target, but rather actions that may cause a person to shame, but are motivated by “seeking to draw attention to a social norm violation, and to rally others to their cause.” In this situation, they outline the following constraints that must be considered when publicly shaming someone in this way: Proportionality: The negative consequences of shaming someone should not be worse than the positive consequences Necessity: There must not be another more effective method of achieving the goal Respect for Privacy: There must not be unnecessary violations of privacy Non-Abusiveness: The shaming must not use abusive tactics. Reintegration “Public shaming must aim at, and make possible, the reintegration of the norm violator back into the community, rather than permanently stigmatizing them.”

      Jennifer Jacquet argues that public shaming can sometimes be morally justified because it allows the weak to put pressure on the powerful, such as governments or corporations that harm society (for example, environmental polluters). Shame can influence large groups, while guilt mainly works within an individual’s psychology.

    1. # When do you think crowd harassment is justified (or do you think it is never justified)? Do you feel differently about crowd harassment if the target is rich, famous, or powerful (e.g., a politician)? Do you feel differently about crowd harassment depending on what the target has been doing or saying?

      The case of the “Lion-Killing Dentist” and the phrase “It is always morally correct to bully billionaires” both highlight a growing phenomenon of internet vigilantism. When formal legal systems fail to produce consequences that align with public moral outrage, online communities often take punishment into their own hands.

    1. So how can platforms and individuals stop themselves from being harassed?

      Online harassment cannot be effectively addressed solely through individual action; meaningful change requires structural platform accountability combined with legal and technical safeguards. While individuals can block, mute, or report harassers, these measures often provide only temporary relief. Harassment frequently comes from coordinated groups or users who create new accounts, making it difficult for a single person to fully protect themselves.

  2. Feb 2026
    1. Location: Some forms of communication require you to be physically close, some allow you to be located anywhere with an internet signal. Time delay: Some forms of communication are almost instantaneous, some have small delays (you might see this on a video chat system), or have significant delays (like shipping a package). Synchronicity: Some forms of communication require both participants to communicate at the same time (e.g., video chat), while others allow the person to respond when convenient (like a mailed physical letter). Archiving: Some forms of communication automatically produce an archive of the communication (like a chat message history), while others do not (like an in-person conversation) Anonymity: Some forms of communication make anonymity nearly impossible (like an in-person conversation), while others make it easy to remain anonymous. -Audience: Communication could be private or public, and they could be one-way (no ability to reply), or two+-way where others can respond. Because of these (and other) differences, different forms of communication might be preferable for different tasks. For example, you might send an email to the person sitting next at work to you if you want to keep an archive of the communication (which is also conveniently grouped into email threads). Or you might send a text message to the person sitting next to you if you are criticizing the teacher, but want to do so discretely, so the teacher doesn’t notice.

      Different communication methods have structural features—such as anonymity, synchronicity, and public visibility—that shape how people interact. These features influence what kinds of crowdsourcing are possible. For example, anonymous and public platforms make large-scale participation easier, while private and synchronous communication supports smaller, coordinated collaboration.

    1. Disinformation campaigns also make use of crowdsoucing. An academic research paper Disinformation as Collaborative Work (pdf) lays out a range of disinformation campaigns: Orchestrated: Entirely fake and astroturfed, no genuine users contributing. Cultivated: Intentionally created misinformation that is planted in a community. It is then spread by real users not aware they are part of a disinformation campaign. Emergent and self-sustaining: Communities creating and spreading their own rumors or own conspiracy narratives.

      This framework shows that disinformation is not always the result of a single malicious actor. Instead, it can operate as a collaborative process, where crowds unknowingly or knowingly participate in producing and spreading misleading narratives. Crowdsourcing in this context does not empower communities, but rather distributes the labor of misinformation across networks of users, often amplified by platform algorithms.

    1. This small percentage of people doing most of the work in some areas is not a new phenomenon. In many aspects of our lives, some tasks have been done by a small group of people with specialization or resources. Their work is then shared with others. This goes back many thousands of years with activities such as collecting obsidian and making jewelry, to more modern activities like writing books, building cars, reporting on news, and making movies.

      This paragraph argues that the concentration of labor among a small group of specialized individuals is not unique to the digital age. Throughout history, production has often relied on skilled experts whose work is then distributed to the wider public.

    1. 14.3.1. 4chan/8chan (minimal moderation)# Sites like 4chan and 8chan bill themselves as sites that support free-speech, in the sense that they don’t ban trolling and hateful speech, though they may remove some illegal content, like child pornography. One thing these sites do ban though, is spam. While much of spam is certainly legal, and a form of speech, this speech is restricted on these sites. If the chat boards filled up with spam, the users would find it boring and leave, so for practical reasons, these sites still moderate for spam (though they may allow some uses of ironic spam, copypasta).

      I find it interesting that even platforms like 4chan and 8chan, which claim to support “free speech,” still engage in selective moderation. The fact that they ban spam shows that no platform can operate without some form of content control. If spam were allowed without restriction, the site would become unusable and users would leave. This suggests that even so-called minimal moderation platforms must make practical decisions about what kinds of speech are acceptable.

    1. In order to make social media sites usable and interesting to users, they may ban different types of content such as advertisements, disinformation, or off-topic posts. Almost all social media sites (even the ones that claim “free speech”) block spam, mass-produced unsolicited messages, generally advertisements, scams, or trolling.

      I find it interesting that content moderation is not only about ethics, but also about platform survival and economic incentives. The categories mentioned—quality control, legal concerns, safety, and offensive content—show that moderation decisions are often driven by business considerations as much as moral ones.

    1. Some people view internet-based social media (and other online activities) as inherently toxic and therefore encourage a digital detox, where people take some form of a break from social media platforms and digital devices. While taking a break from parts or all of social media can be good for someone’s mental health (e.g., doomscrolling is making them feel more anxious, or they are currently getting harassed online), viewing internet-based social media as inherently toxic and trying to return to an idyllic time from before the Internet is not a realistic or honest view of the matter.

      Rather than seeing the internet as the problem itself, it might be more productive to think critically about platform design, algorithms, and personal habits. The goal probably shouldn’t be total withdrawal, but learning how to engage more intentionally and sustainably.

    2. Some people view internet-based social media (and other online activities) as inherently toxic and therefore encourage a digital detox, where people take some form of a break from social media platforms and digital devices. While taking a break from parts or all of social media can be good for someone’s mental health (e.g., doomscrolling is making them feel more anxious, or they are currently getting harassed online), viewing internet-based social media as inherently toxic and trying to return to an idyllic time from before the Internet is not a realistic or honest view of the matter.

      Rather than seeing the internet as the problem itself, it might be more productive to think critically about platform design, algorithms, and personal habits. The goal probably shouldn’t be total withdrawal, but learning how to engage more intentionally and sustainably.

    3. Many have anecdotal experiences with their own mental health and those they talk to. For example, cosmetic surgeons have seen how photo manipulation on social media has influenced people’s views of their appearance: People historically came to cosmetic surgeons with photos of celebrities whose features they hoped to emulate. Now, they’re coming with edited selfies. They want to bring to life the version of themselves that they curate through apps like FaceTune and Snapchat. Selfies, Filters, and Snapchat Dysmorphia: How Photo-Editing Harms Body Image

      Overall, this phenomenon highlights how platform design and digital tools can shape mental health in subtle but powerful ways. It raises important ethical questions about responsibility—both for users and for the companies that create and promote these technologies.

    1. Similarly, recommendation algorithms are rules set in place that might produce biased, unfair, or unethical outcomes. This can happen whether or not the creators of the algorithm intended these outcomes. Once these algorithms are in place though, the have an influence on what happens on a social media site. Individuals still have responsibility with how they behave, but the system itself may be set up so that individual efforts cannot not be overcome the problems in the system.

      This section makes an important distinction between individual analysis and systemic analysis, which is crucial when thinking about recommendation algorithms.

      At the individual level, users are responsible for their behavior: what they like, comment on, share, or search. For example, if someone repeatedly engages with extreme content, the algorithm may interpret that engagement as interest. From this perspective, it may seem reasonable to say users are “training” the algorithm through their actions.

    2. # Sometimes though, individuals are still blamed for systemic problems. For example, Elon Musk, who has the power to change Twitters recommendation algorithm, blames the users for the results:

      This section makes an important distinction between individual analysis and systemic analysis, which is crucial when thinking about recommendation algorithms.

      At the individual level, users are responsible for their behavior: what they like, comment on, share, or search. For example, if someone repeatedly engages with extreme content, the algorithm may interpret that engagement as interest. From this perspective, it may seem reasonable to say users are “training” the algorithm through their actions.

    3. Though even modifying a recommendation algorithm has limits in what it can do, as social groups and human behavior may be able to overcome the recommendation algorithms influence.

      This section makes an important distinction between individual analysis and systemic analysis, which is crucial when thinking about recommendation algorithms.

      At the individual level, users are responsible for their behavior: what they like, comment on, share, or search. For example, if someone repeatedly engages with extreme content, the algorithm may interpret that engagement as interest. From this perspective, it may seem reasonable to say users are “training” the algorithm through their actions.

    1. When social media platforms show users a series of posts, updates, friend suggestions, ads, or anything really, they have to use some method of determining which things to show users. The method of determining what is shown to users is called a recommendation algorithm, which is an algorithm (a series of steps or rules, such as in a computer program) that recommends posts for users to see, people for users to follow, ads for users to view, or reminders for users.

      Recommendation algorithms shape almost everything I see on social media, and I’ve experienced both surprisingly accurate and deeply frustrating recommendations.

    1. For each setting you see, try to come up with what disabilities that setting would be beneficial for (there may be multiple).

      Accessible design recognizes that disability is often created by design assumptions. Rather than placing the burden on individuals to adapt or be “fixed,” approaches like universal design

    1. A disability is an ability that a person doesn’t have, but that their society expects them to have.1 For example:

      Disability is not just about individual limitations, but about the assumptions society makes when designing spaces, technologies, and systems.

    1. Benefits of Functions# There are several advantages to creating and using functions in computer programs, such as: Reusing code instead of repeating code: When we find ourselves repeating a set of actions in our program, we end up writing (or copying) the same code multiple times. If we put that repeated code in a function, then we only have to write it once and then use that function in all the places we were repeating the code. Single, standardized definitions: Let’s say we made code that takes a name and tries to split it into a first name and last name, and we have that code copied in several places in our program. Then we realize that our code isn’t handling some last names correctly, like “O’Reilly” and “Del Toro.” If we fix this bug in one of the places the code is copied in our program it still will be broken elsewhere, so we have to find all the places and fix it there. If, on the other hand we had the code to split names in a function, and used that function everywhere else, then we only have to fix the bug inside that one function and our code everywhere is fixed. Code organization: Making functions also can help us organize our code. It lets us give a name to a block of code, and when we use it, those function names can help make the code more understandable. Making code as functions also helps in letting us put those pieces of code in other files or in code libraries, so the file we are working on is smaller and easier to manage.

      This explanation clearly shows how functions improve efficiency and clarity in programming by reducing repetition, standardizing logic, and making code easier to read and manage.

    1. While we have our concerns about the privacy of our information, we often share it with social media platforms under the understanding that they will hold that information securely. But social media companies often fail at keeping our information secure. For example, the proper security practice for storing user passwords is to use a special individual encryption process for each individual password. This way the database can only confirm that a password was the right one, but it can’t independently look up what the password is or even tell if two people used the same password. Therefore if someone had access to the database, the only way to figure out the right password is to use “brute force,” that is, keep guessing passwords until they guess the right one (and each guess takes a lot of time). But while that is the proper security for storing passwords. So for example, Facebook stored millions of Instagram passwords in plain text, meaning the passwords weren’t encrypted and anyone with access to the database could simply read everyone’s passwords. And Adobe encrypted their passwords improperly and then hackers leaked their password database of 153 million users.

      This example illustrates a gap between users’ expectations of privacy and the actual practices of social media companies. Although users consent to sharing data, that consent assumes responsible stewardship, which is violated when companies fail to implement basic security measures.

    1. Some governments and laws protect the privacy of individuals (using a Natural Rights ethical framing). These include the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which includes a “right to be forgotten”, and the United State’s Supreme Court has at times inferred a constitutional right to privacy.

      This example effectively shows how a Natural Rights ethical framework is reflected in real-world laws, linking abstract ethical principles to concrete legal protections of privacy.

    1. Social Media platforms use the data they collect on users and infer about users to increase their power and increase their profits.

      Social media data is used to maximize user engagement and profit, primarily through targeted advertising, but this same system can be exploited to manipulate vulnerable populations and undermine democratic processes.

    1. 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.

      Data poisoning highlights that data is never neutral. Whether through unintentional bias or intentional sabotage, poisoned data can undermine research, distort automated decision-making, and be used as a form of resistance or political action in data-driven systems.

  3. Jan 2026
    1. Making a bot that is troll proof is very difficult! You either need to severely limit how your bot engages with people, or do a ton of work trying to prevent trolling and fix problems when people find a new way of trolling you.

      This example shows that even simple automated reply bots can be easily exploited to repeat harmful or abusive language. Adding basic rules or restrictions does not fully prevent trolling, which highlights how difficult it is to design automated systems that are both interactive and safe.

    1. 2003 saw the launch of several popular social networking services: Friendster, Myspace, and LinkedIn. These were websites where the primary purpose was to build personal profiles and create a network of connections with other people, and communicate with them. Facebook was launched in 2004 and soon put most of its competitors out of business, while YouTube, launched in 2005 became a different sort of social networking site built around video.

      This section discusses the early history of social networking services, noting the launch of platforms like Friendster, MySpace, LinkedIn, and later Facebook and YouTube, and how their purposes evolved over time.

    1. Age

      For age, I would store it as an integer with range constraints (e.g., 0–120) and allow users to opt out (“prefer not to say”). I would avoid storing birthdate unless absolutely necessary because it increases privacy risk. Even with constraints, age data can be inaccurate due to misreporting and can enable profiling or harm to minors, so in many cases an age range is a safer representation than an exact age.

    1. So, for example, when Twitter tells me that the tweet was posted on Feb 10, 2020, does it mean Feb 10 for me? Or for the person who posted it? Those might not be the same. Or if I want to see for a given account, how much they tweeted “yesterday,” what do I mean by “yesterday?” We might be in different time zones and have different start and end times for what we each call “yesterday.”

      Images, sounds, videos, and dates require complex representations that simplify reality; choices such as compression and time zone definitions shape what data we see and how we interpret social media activity, raising ethical concerns about accuracy, context, and fairness.

    1. Justine lost her job at IAC, apologized, and was later rehired by IAC.

      From a utilitarian perspective, IAC’s decision to dismiss Justine can be understood as an attempt to minimize overall harm and protect the company’s public image. Firing her helped calm public outrage and maintain consumer trust, which benefits a larger group of stakeholders. However, this case also shows a limitation of utilitarianism: the severe consequences for one individual may be justified too quickly in the name of collective benefit, especially when online outrage escalates rapidly.