I'm not sure about the rest of the facts, but I'm sure Musk is now using users' data to research AI, and that's a clear infringement for users - especially those who are artists. Everything the user tweets about their artistic output could potentially be fused by the AI, thus allowing the AI to produce different styles of art in a more sophisticated way, and what the AI generates in seconds is something that would take an artist hundreds of hours or even months to accomplish. What's even scarier is that AI will gradually deprive artists of their employment space, and the commercial deprivation at the artistic level is terrifying - it's the beginnings of the replacement of the human mind by AI. While it is true that AI is still rooted in human beings themselves, the commercial erosion deprives people of the possibility of utilizing their minds to make a living in a practical sense.

I think these contents should be mandatory to be known and viewed in primary schools, or when users first sign up for a social platform. The threshold of the Internet is so low that there are all kinds of people, some of whom pollute the surrounding Internet environment with their own hostility, and some of whom are slowly influenced by some bad words and gradually lose their own values because they have no understanding of the Internet. Therefore, I believe that Internet education should not only be emphasized verbally, but should be actually implemented in life.

In my opinion, the biggest problem faced by such organizations is how to integrate them with modern society. First of all, other groups in society should be supportive of these organizations, and these organizations should actively try to integrate with other parts of society, so that their spirit and ideas can be better disseminated, the public can understand and support them as soon as possible, and peaceful exchanges between the two sides can be the basis for the development of human thought.

I'm skeptical of this paragraph being defined as an act of colonization for two main reasons: the first reason is that programming, as a tool that is needed all over the world, a unified language would be easier to communicate on a large scale, and English, as a more widely used language, is a suitable choice to become a programming language. The second reason is that the original code was compiled in English, so I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping English as a programming language.

Most of the discrimination, humiliation, and unequal treatment between races is due to the fact that the bullies do not treat people of different races as "human beings" like them, but rather classify them through race like a biological chain, so most of the racial conflicts are manifested by the fact that one of the parties does not receive the basic human rights guarantees. Therefore, the problem of most racial conflicts is that one of the parties is not guaranteed basic human rights, which is a lack of respect for human rights and even a lack of respect for life. It was true that there were differences in customs and needs between different races, but those differences should have been resolved peacefully, not turned into unilateral repression and inequality.

I think there are two types of humiliation, the first one is to consciously humiliate others, and the other one is to do something to others without realizing that it is humiliating in the eyes of others, and this example is obviously the second type. For children, unconscious shaming from their parents can create a huge psychological shadow, which can increase their insecurity and powerlessness, and even affect their daily psychological state. And at this time the Internet instead plays a role in criticizing and correcting these behaviors, because the Internet somehow eliminates the generation gap between the views of people of different qualities and different age groups. It is hoped that with the advancement of the Internet unconscious humiliating behaviors will become less and less.

A person should be punished by the law if he/she does something more than what is required by the law, but the moral condemnation on the Internet will in some cases stimulate a person's rebellious mentality, i.e., the more the Internet criticizes something, the more that person will want to do something. However, moral criticism on the internet cannot be limited, so I think there are only two ways to alleviate this situation: the first is to strengthen the legal regulation of that person, and if they do something more serious, let that person take the harsher legal consequences; the second is to force psychological counseling while giving legal punishment, although this method is rather clumsy, but at least

I think there are two ways for individuals on the Internet to defend themselves against harassment before it escalates to the legal level: the first is to point it out directly to the other party when they feel they are being harassed, because there are cases where the other party thinks they are just chatting, but in reality they are harassing in disguise, so pointing it out is very important to avoid any further discomfort or conflict between the two parties. The second is to report the harassment or give feedback to the customer service when you feel that you are being harassed and the other party doesn't stop after pointing out the harassment. The fact is that most social media platforms nowadays do not have enough customer service expertise to deal with harassment, and this is a problem that should be addressed by the law, which should strengthen the company's supervision of employee training.

This is an example of the positive use of croudsourcing on the web, and I have seen examples in other news of netizens being mobilized to republish and collect information in large numbers in order to find people. However, this method is undoubtedly risky, there will be people with ulterior motives to publish wrong information to delay the rescue team, so I think croudsourcing can only be regarded as an auxiliary means in many major incidents, because it is too uncontrollable.

Croudsourcing is actually used in many parts of life, such as roadside interviews and company product questionnaires, all of which are widely used forms of croudsourcing in life. It's just that the information uploaded to search sites such as Wikipedia needs to be as rigorous as possible, so croudsourcing on the web needs to be more strictly scrutinized. Of course, most resource sites are open to error correction, and try to make the information accurate under the scrutiny of many Internet users. At the same time, I believe that when more important information is posted on the web, the website should allow the person behind the information to provide real information to ensure the order of the web and provide legal protection for the users.

Whether it is faking illnesses to gain traffic, cheating money or sharing fake treatments to mislead others, these behaviors have turned into extremely bad but hard-to-prevent threats on the Internet. I think the only measures that can reduce such behaviors at present are real names on the Internet and increased penalties that can be imposed on the person concerned in the legal sense if found. Pretending to be anything, not just a patient, can be extremely misleading to others on the Internet, and there is still a need for stronger online regulation.

Internet trauma can have real-life consequences. Sometimes people just go online to vent their emotions, but venting too much or seeing excessively negative information about others, or becoming a victim or aggressor of others due to emotional distress, can make them aggressive or afraid to interact with others in real life as well. However, it is very difficult to prevent these invisible traumas on the Internet, so I think the psychological education of Internet surfing still needs to be popularized.

I think this is meaningful to the parents' allegation that dangerous chemicals should be set up with vetting conditions when they are purchased, otherwise letting young people or unsuspecting people get them easily will pose a threat to social security. At the same time shopping platforms should also set up data control, for different age groups of buyers, should be pushed on the home page of different products, try not to let the dangerous goods appear in the young people's field of vision.

This concept is akin to the "information cocoon" often referred to by the Internet these days. The birth of the Internet has made it easier for people to access information, but at the same time, due to the push of data, people generally only see what they are interested in or want to see on websites and social media, and over time, they will feel that the world is just like this side of the Internet, and this push mechanism prevents people from experiencing the diversity of the world. Therefore, it is very important to limit the use of the Internet, we have to use the Internet to retrieve information, but we should not trap ourselves in the world of the Internet, otherwise our thinking will be solidified by the network data, and ultimately lead to our inability to face the diverse reality of the world.

Technology has shown great potential for helping persons with disabilities, but existing designs in society are often centered on the needs imagined by the general public, ignoring the diverse needs of persons with disabilities and making it difficult for them to use new technologies. Inclusive design emphasizes understanding and embracing the diversity of users so that technology products can better serve the disabled community and enhance their quality of life.

This approach is one of the most common and practicable ways used in our society today, that is, to provide social facilities to accommodate each of the several types of disabilities that exist in the largest numbers. However, what I have seen so far is that many of these facilities do not serve any practical purpose, the most typical example being blind alleys. There are many blind alleys in irregular and incomplete condition, and there are even blind alleys connecting stairs, pools, manhole covers and other dangerous areas for the blind, and the roads are not equipped with barriers or cues that the blind can receive, and most of the blind still rely on their clumsy canes or expensive guide dogs to move around. There are many calls for better accommodations for other types of disabilities, but I think it might be more immediately helpful to focus on the accommodations that are already in place.

This approach is one of the most common and practicable ways used in our society today, that is, to provide social facilities to accommodate each of the several types of disabilities that exist in the largest numbers. However, what I have seen so far is that many of these facilities do not serve any practical purpose, the most typical example being blind alleys. There are many blind alleys in irregular and incomplete condition, and there are even blind alleys connecting stairs, pools, manhole covers and other dangerous areas for the blind, and the roads are not equipped with barriers or cues that the blind can receive, and most of the blind still rely on their clumsy canes or expensive guide dogs to move around. There are many calls for better accommodations for other types of disabilities, but I think it might be more immediately helpful to focus on the accommodations that are already in place.

This article focuses on the news that the data of 530 million Facebook users has been quietly leaked and the company does not intend to tell users. I found one of the lines interesting, "the company does not have complete confidence in knowing which users would need to be notified". This statement shows that the company does not pay enough attention to the rights of the users, and is not even considering whether the most basic right of the users to use the product, the right to information, needs to be satisfied. This is actually a reflection of the lack of binding laws. Even a large company like this can leak data and not tell users, it is hard to imagine how much data can be leaked from small companies' social media and websites, and there is a long way to go in data protection and cybersecurity.

I think the root cause of these situations is the inadequacy of the law, or the insufficient regulation of high technology by the law. Although the law clearly stipulates "protection of personal privacy", when private companies or social media collect employee or user data, it is difficult for the law to detect these behaviors in order to find strong evidence, and sometimes even the users are told to respect privacy, and then the company quietly collects user data and quietly disseminates it on other websites without the user's knowledge. This actually reflects the "double-edged sword" attribute of technology. Developed technology makes it easier for people to communicate with each other, but personal data and privacy are also gradually lost in unrestricted communication.

The part about nihilism is actually part of the philosophy of life. My teacher taught me before that apart from physical ailments, all discomfort comes from the three views and my reactions to the outside world, and that these can be avoided by adjusting my mind. While it does take a strong mind to be at peace in the face of all ridicule, this is ultimately where everyone grows, and everyone needs to exercise this mindset.

This tweet demonstrates the difference in style and attitude of the Trump team when posting from different cell phones. The feature of labeling the source of the phone is really confusing in the short term, but in the long term I think it's a good feature, just like this example, the longer it goes on, the more people can see the guiding intent behind the statements made using different phones, and there are many other cases where the police have searched for suspects and collected evidence by looking at the source of the device on which the article was posted.

I think this kind of case where even the person behind the social account is not authentic is the scariest, maybe in this case in the book the person who fabricated the account can still be held accountable, but in today's age where AI is prevalent, if someone fabricates AI that can be used to defraud for money, and use this AI model to generate accounts, maybe the law won't be able to even protect the internet user, and may not even be able to pin down the person who initially cultivated the AI, leading to no recourse .