I think the differentiation between a socially enabling platform and a social medium is interesting, because there are some platforms that I think fall in a grey area between those two classifications. For example, Reddit is a platform where users can join groups based on their interests and engage in conversations regarding specific topics within those groups. Each topic is essentially a discussion forum where users can reply to other users' posts and form conversations, so on the surface the platform seems to have a high level of sociability since users are having involved conversations with each other, but on the other hand the platform is notorious for having a lot of "lurkers" which are people who read these discussions but don't participate in them. Consequently I wonder if Reddit would be considered a social medium or a social enabling platform. Personally I would consider it a mix between the two.

I think this is a really important bias to consider, and a common reason that people don't give charity to people who live outside of their community. It's easier to dehumanize people when they come from a different culture or look different from you. People need to think more about the fact that if people within their community were suffering from poverty, or had insufficient access to resources, then of course they would feel the need to help, so why is it different for people who are not within their sphere to suffer? This is something that clicked in my head one day and I'm glad to see it mentioned in this reading, because it made me a more empathetic person and I think it's a pretty positive outlook to have.