The value of the whole society is largely shaped and influenced by the social media. We know that a lot of values presented on the social media are not correct and are sometimes wrote intentionally. However, as the values spread out and become viral, they seem to become the mainstream and people not believing in them are separated from the rest. However, we should stuck with what we believe and stop spreading the viral information.

I feel that people's emotion and mental state are so closely tight with the social media. You can get depressed easily by viewing the social media for just minutes. We know that we should not regard what's on the social media as the realistic life though some part of it is, but we still can't separate it completely from our thinking. What we need is the strong emotion that helps us to stay away from harm.

I think this statement is better than the previous one. The words "give people the power" means that the final decision of whether to be connected to others is made by people themselves instead of being "forced" to accept what Zuckerberg believed to be good. In this way, he is just expressing his wish, but not forcing something to happen.

This is like saying no matter what your contents are, where it is produced determines its value. If this is the truth, then I highly doubt that the industry can ever get to develop. Luckily, though codes written in Silicon Valley may still be regarded as somehow superior, it's not the complete story. The content itself is a more determining factor than who wrote it.

It's a very clever strategy since it lets its user get used to using the app. When advertisements are introduced, users will of course have some negative feeling. However, since using the app has became part of their life, they won'r just simply leave the social media. Most often, they'll tolerate it.

I think most of corporations in China, though they may be privately owned, have a lot of relationships with the Chinese government. The business organizations in China, no matter which industries they belong to, are affected heavily by the government decisions and the law regulating the business market. If the law favor a industry, businesses in that particular industry can flourish very quickly.

I think this is one benefit of working for the government of socialism. If you are in a socialism system and work for the government, you have less worry of losing your job. Normally, you may not earn as much as people in the capitalism, but your job is more stable since the government is responsible for the risk. It's the trade off between profit and stability.

A lot of things can not be repaired, one that's most obvious is people's lives. What Nazis have done and destroyed can not be repaired, but since doesn't mean that they should not be punished. Repairing and punishing are two completely different things that are acted on different individuals.

Different people will have different level of guilt even if they are facing the same situation. It's even more true for people with different ethics, since they believe in different beliefs and have different standard for what's right. Therefore, guild is hard to scale since everyone reacts differently.

I think women are particularly easy target for social media harassment. For instance, women are judged more heavily than men on their body shapes, appearances, skins, and even their past experiences of dating. Among all the comments, harassment or comments with negative intentions are easily found. I think the society is still holding different judgement and viewpoint on women and men.

I own a social media account that shares my experience of going to different restaurant. Sometimes, some people thought that my comments were not real, and the restaurant owner paid me to make good comments. This may not be a harassment but is really annoying for me.

I think the social media has responsibility of checking and modifying the crowd actions done on the social media. They should check if the work done by the crowd is desirable and see if it will cause any undesirable harm. If there's potential harm involved, they should modify it to exclude the harm.

Their intention is for good, but the result caused other's pain. The crowd work, though it's not paid, can have this undesirable consequences. The work is not professional, not dispatched by the official. Therefore, they are volunteers to the case and thus free from blame if they make mistakes. It's hard to make judgement on their behavior. It's sometimes better to not having them work on the case.

It's hard to say if this is a good or bad thing. Giving everyone the right to edit means that it will be comprehensive and always updated. However, it also means that it's not professional, even if the contents it presents seem to be academic. Therefore, users shouldn't trust it completely.

I wonder what caused this skewness? Is it because women are less likely to contribute on Wikipedia? Does it mean that males are more active in writing for Wikipeda articles? Or does Wikipedia itself more willing to accept articles from male editors? The data presented show a huge difference that I'm confused about.

I don't think this is a good strategy to follow, especially in current society, where information and social media data have played such influential roles in our life. Without moderation, if there's some error that the creator of the website doesn't notice, then people with bad intention can easily utilize the error and implement bad behavior. The resulting devastation created may fall into the creator's fault.

I think this idea about moderation is what's needed in the current society. It's nearly impossible to satisfy everybody's needs. Therefore, how to find a midpoint that could somehow reflect everyone's needs is important and necessary. What's more, a moderate balance should also exist between platforms and users.

I think a useful way would be the platform pre-supervise the content of the post before making it public. In China, many social medias use this strategy. Sometimes, implicit advertisements, harmful and viral contents, or some sensitive political topics would not be allowed to post.

Though they fake on their illness like having cancer, they may indeed have some other kinds of illness. For instance, they may be mentally disorder or unstable. There are several reason for people to want to get attention from others in this weird way. Sometimes, people just want to make them look poor and pity.

I think this would relate to some ethical issues of recommendation algorithms. Should the social media recommends people based on its algorithms? Or in other words, should social media hold the right to decide what to let its users see and view? What should we do if the platform have some bad intension of spreading out viral information?

This is what really bothers parents, schools, and the society. They want their kids to be away from the social medias, away from electronic devices. However, they can't simply do that. These are now indispensable part of one's life. For instance, your kid may rely on social media platform on electronic devices to learn online courses. Both good and bad things are brought by them.

I'm a food blogger on a social media platform. Though I want my post to be seen and liked by more people, I don't want people around me to know that I'm launching this media account. However, I think it was because of the recommendation algorithms, many people around me have discovered my account. So it works even if you don't want it to work.

Every time I searched for a particular products on The Red, a Chinese social media platform, I later found out the the social media would keep sending me reviews about the product. It was useful sometimes since it was the information I needed. However, it got annoying sometimes as many advertisements got mixed in it.

I feel like this kind of tweets were just sharing some real moments in their lives with their real thoughts. How people perceiving it define how it would be spread out. Sometimes, people themselves don't expect their post to have such a big influence on the internet. It's usually not a good thing to get famous on tweeter in this way.

I think sometimes there are issue with the modification of the social media content. Sometimes, the modification makes unexpected changes on the writer's original meaning of his words. And therefore, as the modification gets spread out, the writer's original intention will be mis-understood. Therefore, it's important for people modifying the content to show where the text is coming from.

The spreading of letters depends on various reasons and factors. It could continuously be spreading out or stoped quickly after it being sent. People receiving it may hold different opinions about this behavior. If all people believe in the good luck the letter could bring to them, then the letter may be sent to a great number of people.

Though the alt-texts may help in some extend, but it maybe not as helpful as some people think. Though one can try to be as comprehensive in the description as possible, it's not possible to cover every aspect of an image by using language alone. The things you describe may not be the information viewers wants.

To be honest, I don't know that some people can see more colors than I do. If I was told that I can't see as many colors as some people can, I would only considered them to have some extra ability. However, I won't consider myself to be disabled in seeing some colors. Maybe I'm used to the claim that I'm normal.

I think the biggest concern is who the private information is released to. If the information is released to someone with no bad intention, then it won't be disastrous. If the information is released to someone with bad intention, then it could be a big harm. People could use the private information to harass or to intimidate you.

This is actually what's happening on me. I have a social media account on a Chinese app where I shared restaurants and food I like. Though there's nothing shameful about, I still feel like I don't want people around me to know that I have this account. However, a great number of my friends have discovered and recognized my account. I feel like this is like a violation of my privacy.

This is like the Ed platform students use. You can hide your name from other students, but your professor can still see the name of the poster. I think it reserve some rights for the teacher to keep everything under control so that students don't post unrelated stuff, but it also restricts students' right to speak freely.

I'm a little surprised to see the "tags" Google gives to me. They are very detailed. It lists the websites I frequently go over, and also includes things that I looked through a year ago. What's more, it guesses out my age correctly. It's hard to describe my feeling. I think I prefer not to be analyzed and exposed to Google so completely.

I have another example if spurious correlation. The number of ice cream sold seems to have correlation with the number of cases of people being attacked by snakes. It turns out that it may because people tend to buy more ice cream in summer, when snakes are most active. Indeed, the correlation doesn't mean causation.

I believe this is what's used for the auto recommendation. The social media learn from your behaviors like recent views and infer your interest. The auto recommendation is sometimes amazing, but sometimes annoying. It's hard to say if it's actually helping me.

This happens in my high-school. Some people in my school formed their group and they seemed to have an unspoken rule--they all wore clothes of the same brands. If one didn't, he became the outlier in the group. Though this rule seemed ridiculous to me, I could understand their intention.

I kind of agree with this suggestion. People trolling on the internet are trying to get people's attention and negative reactions. If we ignore them and don't respond, they'll eventually get bored of their behavior. However, if you reply with anger, it means that their achieve what they want: they want to trigger people's negative feelings.

When a user's emotion is evoked, it's usually the negative part of his emotion. People with moderate feelings usually find it hard to get emotionally involved. People who intentionally invoke others' feeling may have bad intentions like creating internet abuse or trigger one's hate.

I think I've seen this in some novels. People who have one persona actually turns out to be a completely different person on the internet. The anonymity provides the perfect shell for him, so he can do and post whatever wants without being penalized. Thus, I do believe that the anonymity somehow encourages the inauthentic behavior.

A person may have different persona for different situations. Though the persona may differ from who he really is, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is inauthentic. Sometimes, a modification of one's behavior is needed just like the following examples indicate. A person's persona may subconsciously change with the surrounding environment.

I feel like this is because some interactions are eliminated because of the development of technology. For instance, you can now buy grocery staff from the internet without actually interacting with farmers. In this way, you don't have to give your trust to others. If the real apple you received doesn't match with the online description, the website will protect your rights.

This happens a lot in real life. Another friction I encountered is that, next to the "x" button, there was a link navigating to the advertisement's site. Since the link was so close to the closing button, it was very easy for you to tap on the link, therefore navigated to the site you didn't want to visit. These frictions were designed intentionally.

With restriction, users may feel restricted and their right of free speech is violated. Without restriction, offensive speeches are no longer limited. There are trade-off between freedom and restriction. How much to restrict is always a hard question for creators of social media platforms.

I think Ed kind of follows this bulletin board system. Students with question can post the questions on the internet, and people, including both students and professors, are free to answer. I think it's an effective way to communicate within a group of people.

There are different advantages as well as disadvantages for different methods of collecting, recording, and representing data. Which method to use depends on the actual scenario. It's also like the tradeoffs between simplicity and comprehension. It's great to have a simple, easy-understanding, and simplified work, but at the same time, the comprehension of the work should also be considered.

If I were to collect data about people's age, I would first make age into small ranges. For example, age between 0 and 10, 10 and 20, 20 and 30, and so on. I may ask the user to type the age and see which age ranges it falls into. It not only stores the data I need, but also help me to summarize the age distribution of my users, which may later turn out to be useful for analysis.

It is at first hard for me to imagine that sounds can be stored, represented, and generated by numbers, which seem to have nothing to do with what we can hear. I think this is the feature of computer: everything is represented by data. The plain, cold, and simple data can build the internet world.

This is just like the example of Tay. Tay itself doesn't have the ability to distinguish between good thing and bad thing. It is the people who teaches it to post racist tweets that should be punished. Here, the donkey is just performing what people instruct it to do. It doesn't understand the meaning of its act. Therefore, I think it is the people that should be punished.

I believe that this is one of the dilemmas that artificial intelligence is facing. It's smart and efficient, but it doesn't have a way to distinguish things people want them to learn or perform. If it's used in a good way, then it's beneficial to the social welfare. If people with bad intention teach them to do dangerous thing, people are posing threat to our own society. I think this should be taken into consideration when creating inventions like Tay.

I feel like this recommendation algorithms has influenced me a lot. Red is a very popular Chinese app, and people can post everything they want on it, as long as it's considered as legal. As a user, in the recommendation page, I always see posts that I care about. I believe that's because once you open a post, the app remembers it, and keep sending you similar posts. I have to say that keep seeing similar posts sometimes influence my decision.

I'm a little bit surprised to see this picture with all women doing the calculations. They are all trained to perform this special, rigorous, and boring task. Does it mean that at that time before electronic computers were created, women were mainly in charge of this intellectual work? Was that because women were usually more patient, more alarm about data?

The colonizers will definitely impose influence on the local, and usually, that influence passes even after the colonization. The colonization has impact on both tangible things and mental belief. For instance, Portugal has colonized Macao, and Portuguese cuisine can be seen everywhere in Macao. Even the local food has been infused with Portuguese style. However, there are also instance of the colonizers failing to impose their culture to the local. I remember a article saying that the English colonizers failed to impose their ethics and way of building houses to the local Americans.

This is one of the most famous, widely-used ethics in China. The founder of it launched a school that attracted more than 3000 students. He also wrote many textbooks that has passed for thousands of year. I remember myself learning his words in primary school and high-school. He is also the top figure of the 10 most cultural-influential person in the world. He was born as a noble and later travelled through different countries. This experience has contributed a lot to his ethics. The main idea of his belief is to use benevolence and righteousness to rule the country. He separated normal people and the authorities, and defined them as "people being ruled" and "rulers".