2 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. 12.2.1. Books# The book Writing on the Wall: Social Media - The First 2,000 Years [l6] describes how, before the printing press, when someone wanted a book, they had to find someone who had a copy and have a scribe make a copy. So books that were popular spread through people having scribes copy each other’s books. And with all this copying, there might be different versions of the book spreading around, because of scribal copying errors, added notes, or even the original author making an updated copy. So we can look at the evolution of these books: which got copied, and how they changed over time. 12.2.2. Chain letters# When physical mail was dominant in the 1900s, one type of mail that spread around the US was a chain letter [l7]. Chain letters were letters that instructed the recipient to make their own copies of the letter and send them to people they knew. Some letters gave the reason for people to make copies might be as part of a pyramid scheme [l8] where you were supposed to send money to the people you got the letter from, but then the people you send the letter to would give you money. Other letters gave the reason for people to make copies that if they made copies, good things would happen to them, and if not bad things would, like this: You will receive good luck within four days of receiving this letter, providing, you in turn send it on. […] An RAF officer received $70,000 […] Gene Walsh lost his wife six days after receiving the letter. He

      Reading this section about pre-internet virality really made me reflect on how deeply rooted our desire to share and connect is. The example of chain letters especially stood out to me — even without social media, people still felt compelled to pass messages along, sometimes out of fear, sometimes out of hope. It’s interesting that what motivated them was often emotional rather than logical. This reminds me of how similar patterns appear today on social media: people still share posts promising “good luck” or “positive energy,” and even I’ve occasionally reshared something because it felt comforting or meaningful at the moment. It makes me realize that virality isn’t just about algorithms or technology; it’s about human emotions — our longing to be part of something bigger, our belief that our small actions can ripple outward.

  2. Oct 2025
    1. Additionally, groups keep trying to re-invent old debunked pseudo-scientific (and racist) methods of judging people based on facial features (size of nose, chin, forehead, etc.), but now using artificial intelligence [h10]. Social media data can also be used to infer information about larger social trends like the spread of misinformation [h11]. 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’s really shocking to realize how much personal information can be inferred from simple online behavior. The idea that AI or data mining can guess someone’s sexual orientation or addiction tendency just from their friend list or social activity feels invasive and unethical. I personally think it crosses a line between public and private life.

      At the same time, I understand why companies want to use data to “predict” users—it’s part of how social media algorithms work. But when this data is used to judge people’s race or personality through pseudo-scientific facial recognition, it becomes a form of digital discrimination. It makes me wonder if we are gradually losing control of our identities online.