28 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2024
    1. As a Social Media User

      I don't often find myself using social media anymore. However I do wish to look towards looking further into ethical practices regarding social media

    1. In England in the early 1800s, Luddites were upset that textile factories were using machines to replace them, leaving them unemployed, so they sabotaged the machines. The English government sent soldiers to stop them, killing and executing many.

      The way I see it is that the worries of people having jobs taken by machines is a real threat if used improperly. However once the fear and hype around such machines are gone, they mostly end up as tools that further the industry. I'm not saying that the fears against certain advancements is unwarranted, if anything it can help to moderate the uses of such tech, I'm more saying advancements will take time to be accepted and implemented.

    1. Most programming languages are based in English, and there are very few non-English programming languages, and those that exist are rarely used.

      I don't think that this is strictly a bad thing, mostly because rewording programing languages for multiple languages would cause more confusion and unnecessary complications when working with different programmers across the globe. Having some standard language for coding allows for collaboration between several different countries and programmers across the world.

    1. More users: If Meta has more users, it can offer advertisers more people to advertise to. More user time: If Meta’s users spend more time on Meta, then it has more opportunities to show ads to each user, so it can sell more ads. More personal data: The more personal data Meta collects, the more predictions about users it can make. It can get more data by getting more users, and more user time, as well as finding more things to track about users. Reduce competition: If Meta can become the only social media company that people use, then they will have cornered the market on access to those users. This means advertisers won’t have any alternative to reach those users, and Meta can increase the prices of their ads.

      This isn't purely exclusive to meta, this is the business model of most social media platforms that prioritize profits like any business. The main exceptions to this model are sites that don't prioritize profits such as 4chan.

  2. Nov 2024
    1. How would that retracted tweet look when viewed?

      Compared to a deleted tweet, which could be seen as a cowardly act of retreat, or a comment below the original tweet that might not be seen, a retracted tweet might have higher sentiment given that it's viewable that the original author of the tweet owned up to their mistake. It would also be different from a community note because there is an inherent public shame notion to go along with a community noted post.

    1. Some argued that there was no type of reconciliation or forgiveness possible given the crimes committed by the Nazis.

      The way that I see it is not necessarily as a reconciliation for what the Nazi's did, but more as a way to publicize the horrors the Nazi party committed, and ruin the ideals and ideologies that drove the Nazi's. I'd attribute a lot of the high negative sentiment the Nazi's have in the modern day that other extreme ideologies and regimes don't always have (e.g. other modern dictators and leaders who committed high levels of genocide) to the highly publicized trials.

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

      With how social media platforms operate and make money, stopping harassment outright is completely impossible. Although platforms are required to prevent harassment to an extent, due to the scope some harassment has and the platforms often doing the bare minimum, mass harassment will likely continue and grow even more.

    1. Additionally, we can consider the following forms of crowd harassment: Dogpiling: When a crowd of people targets or harasses the same person. Public Shaming (this will be our next chapter) Cross-platform raids (e.g., 4chan group planning harassment on another platform) Stochastic terrorism The use of mass public communication, usually against a particular individual or group, which incites or inspires acts of terrorism which are statistically probable but happen seemingly at random. See also: An atmosphere of violence: Stochastic terror in American politics

      This type of harassment become increasingly common as social media has become more mainstream, and it seems as though the loud parts of the internet have used it to mixed effect. Sometimes they'll succeed in what they sought out to do, other times they'll tout themselves heroes when they did nothing of value or more harm than good.

    1. 16.3.2. Well-Intentioned Harm# Sometimes even well-intentioned efforts can do significant harm. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, FBI released a security photo of one of the bombers and asked for tips. A group of Reddit users decided to try to identify the bomber(s) themselves. They quickly settled on a missing man (Sunil Tripathi) as the culprit (it turned out had died by suicide and was in no way related to the case), and flooded the Facebook page set up to search for Sunil Tripathi, causing his family unnecessary pain and difficulty. The person who set up the “Find Boston Bomber” Reddit board said “It Was a Disaster” but “Incredible”, and Reddit apologized for online Boston ‘witch hunt’.

      A concerning amount of internet vigilantism ends up resulting in falsely accusing people of actions they are not responsible or impeding investigations from authorities. Even though there are a few cases where this internet vigilantism has resulted in good outcomes such as the bike lock basher, most cases generally do more harm to communities than good.

    1. 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)

      To me, archiving is a vital task that should be performed to preserve important data or information that may otherwise be lost. The lost of media and information I feel is becoming increasingly an issue pushed under the rug or actively pushed for by certain groups of people in pursuit of short term profits or goals.

    1. If you are running your own site and suddenly realize you have a moderation problem you might have some of your current staff (possibly just yourself) start handling moderation. As moderation is a very complicated and tricky thing to do effectively, untrained moderators are likely to make decisions they (or other users) regret.

      As a startup business, it is a good idea to have untrained staff for moderation, particularly if you trust the people you hire for the job. However on larger scales the untrained nature of the staff makes it so that the team is prone to bias. Despite this, several larger companies still use untrained staff for moderation because it is generally cheaper to manage.

    1. Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms had an exception to their normal moderation policies for political leaders, where they wouldn’t ban them even if they violated site policies (most notably applied to Donald Trump). After the January 6th insurrection at the US Capital, Donald Trump was banned first from Twitter, then from Facebook, and Facebook announced an end to special treatment for politicians.

      Giving exceptions to more known users has seemingly not resulted in anything good, especially during Donald Trump's presidency. It makes it so that those who are more well known are not as responsible for their actions as the rest of the users on the platforms.

    1. For example, Facebook has a suicide detection algorithm, where they try to intervene if they think a user is suicidal (Inside Facebook’s suicide algorithm: Here’s how the company uses artificial intelligence to predict your mental state from your posts). As social media companies have tried to detect talk of suicide and sometimes remove content that mentions it, users have found ways of getting around this by inventing new word uses, like “unalive.”

      One of the main reasons I really don't like this method of determining if someone is suicidal is because it inadvertently deters conversation about suicide and makes it more taboo to discuss, potentially causing social constructs about suicide and other serious topics by trying to prevent people from talking about it. The other main reason is that it is incredibly difficult to determine when or if someone is in danger of suicide, even in the world of psychology and therapy.

    1. The seeking out of bad news, or trying to get news even though it might be bad, has existed as long as people have kept watch to see if a family member will return home safely. But of course, new mediums can provide more information to sift through and more quickly, such as with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle in the 1990s, or, now social media.

      The constant barrage of news on social media can be overwhelming and make pretty historical and landmark events seem more trivial than they really are. Other times the issue is overinflated and things are made to be much worse than they really are.

    1. Saying and doing provocative, shocking, and offensive things can also be an effective political strategy, and getting viral attention through others’ negative reactions has been seen as a key component of Donald Trump’s political successes.

      Generally negative speech and rhetoric gains the most attention and motivates people to speak on an interact with posts, making the algorithm believe that the posts in question are one users like. It's just a never-ending cycle of negativity I think has greatly divided the political scene and the irrational behavior of social media users.

    1. When content (and modified copies of content) is in a position to be replicated, there are factors that determine whether it gets selected for replicated or not. As humans look at the content they see on social media they decide whether they want to replicate it for some reason

      Most times people seek to replicate and share content with the intent purpose and having as many people talking about them and viewing them as possible. Other times the users are just passionate about their work and want to share it with the world.

  3. Oct 2024
    1. There are concerns that echo chambers increase polarization, where groups lose common ground and ability to communicate with each other. In some ways echo chambers are the opposite of context collapse, where contexts are created and prevented from collapsing. Though others have argued that people do interact across these echo chambers, but the contentious nature of their interactions increases polarization.

      Social media platforms make money off of engagement, which is easiest to farm with enraging and negative content. The push for negative content then causes people to huddle in communities that repeat the same things they want to hear and close out the views of others.

    1. What experiences do you have of social media sites making particularly good recommendations for you?

      It's very inconsistent. Sometimes they'll guide me to things that do genuinely interest me and have impacted me quite a bit, other times they'll recommend something completely out of left field.

    1. Another way of managing disabilities is assistive technology, which is something that helps a disabled person act as though they were not disabled

      Looking at how the technology has evolved and where it's headed, I always loved looking at assistive technology. Although I did not understand that assistive technology could include things like glasses or stimulants because of how normalized they are compared to other technology like electronic prosthetics.

    1. Most humans are trichromats, meaning they can see three base colors (red, green, and blue), along with all combinations of those three colors. Human societies often assume that people will be trichromats. So people who can’t see as many colors are considered to be color blind, a disability. But there are also a small number of people who are tetrachromats and can see four base colors2 and all combinations of those four colors. In comparison to tetrachromats, trichromats (the majority of people), lack the ability to see some colors. But our society doesn’t build things for tetrachromats, so their extra ability to see color doesn’t help them much. And trichromats’ relative reduction in seeing color doesn’t cause them difficulty, so being a trichromat isn’t considered to be a disability.

      It is actually interesting to know that there are different ways of seeing more colors outside of being color blind. I wonder what type of sight I have and whether I'm a tetrochromat or trichromat.

    1. 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.

      For the most part, I really dislike the idea of targeted advertising because it requires the data of users to be collected and sold for money, essentially treating someone's activity and to an extent identity as a paycheck. That's not even mentioning the ages or less than frivilous consequences that targeting advertising can have.

    1. One particularly striking example of an attempt to infer information from seemingly unconnected data was someone noticing that the number of people sick with COVID-19 correlated with how many people were leaving bad reviews of Yankee Candles saying “they don’t have any scent” (note: COVID-19 can cause a loss of the ability to smell):

      It is interesting that there are several relationships between data sets that have absolutely no relation, yet have a correlation when graphed together. There are plenty of examples online, and they can be pretty funny when they aren't intentionally spreading misinformation.

    1. In the mid-1990s, some internet users started manually adding regular updates to the top of their personal websites (leaving the old posts below), using their sites as an online diary, or a (web) log of their thoughts. In 1998/1999, several web platforms were launched to make it easy for people to make and run blogs (e.g., LiveJournal and Blogger.com). With these blog hosting sites, it was much simpler to type up and publish a new blog entry, and others visiting your blog could subscribe to get updates whenever you posted a new post, and they could leave a comment on any of the posts.

      Back in those days, the internet seems a lot more personable and much closer knit than it is today simply because it wasn't as populated or centralized as it is today. Part of me wants to experience the vibe of those days for myself and see why people prefer this style of internet to today.

    1. 4Chan has various image-sharing bulletin boards, where users post anonymously. Perhaps the most infamous board is the “/b/” board for “random” topics. This board emphasizes “free speech” and “no rules” (with exceptions for child pornography and some other illegal content). In these message boards, users attempt to troll each other and post the most shocking content they can come up with. They also have a history of collectively choosing a target website or community and doing a “raid” where they all try to join and troll and offend the people in that community.

      The lawlessness of the site combined with the veil of anonymity 4chan provides is what causes people to act so henously. Yet sometimes there are glimmers of humanity in the depths of depravity that is 4chan.

    1. Why do you think social media platforms allow bots to operate?

      Any traffic generated on social media platforms gives the platform money regardless of how the traffic, meaning there's a financial incentive to keep creating and leaving up bots. In my experience, most users create bots for gimmick accounts, trolling, and most frequently advertising services to users.

    1. 3.2.1. Friendly bots:# Some bots are intended to be helpful, using automation to make tasks easier for others or to provide information, such as: Auto caption: https://twitter.com/headlinerclip Vaccine progress: https://twitter.com/vax_progress Blocking groups of people: https://twitter.com/blockpartyapp_ Social Media managing programs that help people schedule and coordinate posts Delete old tweets: https://tweetdelete.net/ See a new photo of a red panda every hour: https://twitter.com/RedPandaEveryHr Bots might have significant limits on how helpful they are, such as tech support bots you might have had frustrating experiences with on various websites.

      Previously I had not seen the benefits that bots could provide to internet users, and gaining insight as to what they predominately are tasked to perform does give me some appreciation for bots. However I am still a little wary of bots as a largely due to the large amount of traffic on the internet bots have made in comparison to humans, especially in the last few years.

    1. “The internet isn’t real life.” This was used as a way to devalue time spent on social media sites, and to dismiss harms that occurred on them.

      Part of me believes that the world has, especially in recent times, put high value in social media and rather than trying to evaluate the time spent on social media, instead justify the views of and actions on social media. It could also be intended to try and separate the identities people have online from the identity they have in real life, as people often act incredibly different online compared to real life.

    1. Egoism# “Rational Selfishness”: It is rational to seek your own self-interest above all else. Great feats of engineering happen when brilliant people ruthlessly follow their ambition. That is, Do whatever benefits yourself. Altruism is bad.

      While I do understand where the concept of rational selfishness comes from, that being it is human nature to be selfish and put self-preservation first, it feels to me as though very few forms of selfishness are in any way just, especially if it comes at the expense of others. In the light of how popular the ideal is with large tech and CEO's, it feels as if the ideal is an attempt for some people to excuse their harmful selfishness by blaming it on human nature.