I think the situation may be sightly different by generally goes back to previous situation. People all have their preferences and they govern the social media by their own way. Users can from different group and then the most powerful group may govern the social media totally again.

I think then the social media is highly likely to express government's ideas and be a platform to promoting new policies. Social media may also collect information of users that support and deny this party, which can be vital in election.

When public shaming can indeed increase human well beings instead of preaching hate, this action can be ethical. For instance, calling for social justice and expressing injustice people suffered can be in a form of public shaming, but this should be considered as a positive one.

Public shaming can be really harmful since audience are out of context so they can be easily led by others. Sometimes public shaming will add huge stress on innocent people and this should be considered unethical.

Social media platforms should handle crowd harassment by implementing stricter moderation policies, such as flagging and removing harmful content quickly and consistently. Additionally, educating users about online would help reduce crowd harassment over time.

Social media platforms make harassment possible by providing anonymous and wide reach, which give harassers more confidence. This makes social platforms fail to protect victims.

For example, some untrusted users should not be allowed to edit relatively reliable sources, like Wikipedia. Also, social platforms should do their job on supervision, like they need to discover some potential planned activities that may lead to society chaos.

I rarely upload or edit something like Wikipedia, but I still find myself in crowdsourcing. Like the essays I have written may be searched by others. Also, I have donated online, this is a kind of crowdfunding.

Possible consequences may be discriminatory content, like racism. Also I think advertisements should be marked clearly in order not to mislead consumers.

Kind of. I once tried to share my hand written notes on business courses, but later on the rules told me that I have an intend to make the notes commercial. So at some extent I do not think rules always automatically make sense, sometimes these rules may need more precise supervisions.

First of all, illegal content should be banned strictly, like content instigate suicide or crime. Also, social platform should take responsibility on promoting positive content and online activities, like warm communities that help solving users' mental health problems.

Social media can lead to anxiety to some extent. For instance, users may spread fake messages and mislead the audience even though they do not mean to do this. However, social media can offer help since some kind users may encourage those who suffer and give them some possible solutions.

I don't think this can be a good idea. Viral can make people know less about an event.

I have see others use advertisement and put them alomost everywhere. Also, social media platforms help content go viral, like Tiktok.

Social media can improve by using more comprehensive algorithms like combine multiple platforms and calculate the users' favorite topics. Also, it can recommend further topics according to users' feed back on previous recommended ones.

Social platforms should follow the rule that they need to be honest to users. Fake news and trends should be detected, even if there are advertising content, they should mark it so that users can have fair and clear judgement to something.

I think a good example can be the function that allows disabled people to hear instead of read the content. On some social media, people can choose to click on the mic icon and listen to the content and reply by transforming speaking into auto-typing.

I think design justice can be different for different target groups. However, there are still some universal rules to follow, like respecting to privacy, allowing free ideas, and prohibiting illegal content.

For instance, a social platform may be run by a company which has multiple apps. Social platform may collect these information so that they can provide content matches users preferences on other platforms according to private information they have. So that they can earn more money.

Platforms are vulnerable to cyber-attacks, users' information may leak. Also, while platforms collect users' preferences, users' info may be kind of transparent on the internet.

I don't think it is proper to let google label me, but indeed, if it knows my interests, it can serve me better. However, I still feel a sense of lack of privacy in this case. People seem to be transparent on Internet.

I think location data should not be discovered by social media unless users add their location while posting. It may create significant privacy risks and it can be used for monitoring or spying.

When trolling is used to illustrate fraud, it can be beneficial and promote critical thinking. However, when used to harass or bully someone, it can also be harmful and cause mental pain. The purpose of trolling and how it affects the targeted people or communities determine the result.

To handle trolling, it's best to ignore and avoid engaging, as trolls thrive on attention. Users can use platform tools to block or report trolls, keeping the online environment controlled and safe.

A common example of a parasocial interaction is the one between followers and YouTubers. Many YouTubers frequently publish vlogs about their personal lives, talking about daily activities and feelings, giving viewers the impression that they have a thorough insight of the YouTuber's existence. Although the fans have never met the YouTuber, they may believe they have built a personal relationship with them and perhaps consider the YouTuber to be a friend

This example illustrates how data analysis may help distinguish between personal and formal messages in politics. Emotions in a post may increase its authenticity since people tend to trust posts with human behaviors. Tweets posted by campaign may seem too official so that people may not want to comment on this.

Bulk messaging or posting irrelevant content to lots of people should be banned. This can help to reduce harassment and unauthorized advertisement, also direct mail between individual users (especially for user under 18) should set several limitations in order to avoid internet fraud.

One example I can think of is TikTok and Xiaohongshu. Both have graphic sharing functions. But the next steps are slightly different. While TikTok focuses on fostering group chats and building connections between different users, Xiaohongshu follows up by guiding users to post comments and chat individually.

One example of pernicious ignorance I can think of is a blogger promoting a lipstick on a social media platform. He went on and on about the merits of the product he was promoting, and when someone in the comments suggested that the price was a little expensive, he said that the merits of the lipstick were worth the price and said that the price was not expensive. He suggested that it was this commenter who was underpaid. He only considered his own income as a social media seller but hurt other ordinary people with little income.

In measuring all aspects of the data, the weight of each factor should be fully considered. Data statistics are a very generalized approach and parameters should be specified. Social platforms can be improved by conducting research with the users of the social platform to understand which factors are more important in their minds.

Bots are just tools, the knowledge base they use to learn languages is the real problem. Many people are responsible for this: the people who choose the language learning samples, the people who write the bots' programmes and the platform's auditors who should response to bad content.

Allowing bots to exist on the site will greatly increase the profitability of the social platforms. For graphic social platforms, such as Xiaohongshu, the platform's main content is users sharing their real life experiences, one of the most significant source of revenue for this platform may be the promotion of sponsored posts. Bots can post positive comments under sponsored posts to guide real users to buy or browse related products, thus achieving the effect of advertising. Therefore, social platforms and bots achieve a kind of ‘cooperative’ relationship in this case.

How to define or weigh "most people" can be a problem. In ancient societies, like the stone age, should "most people" be strictly calculated by a certain proportion of population? Or should this be calculated by labor force? The rights of minority groups need to be considered. Nowadays, in a complicated political and demographical environment(which is far more complicated than that of the stone age), it is even harder for people to judge how to make most people happy. Well, making most people happy means that rights of the other people who are out of the mainstream group may be abandoned, which againsts the principle that all men are created equal.

Words' power do exist. Some physical behaviors or harassment may not occur, and people tend to be more open and reckless on social media since they may conceal their real identities. However, the case of Sacco shows that social media can be closely related to real life. Social media cannot totally represent real life but at least part of it. Harm caused by Sacco's words to specific groups of people do exists, impact on Sacco's real life do exists (she lost her job).