Are there ways social media sites can be designed to be better for the mental health of its users?
I think social media platforms hae the responsibility of making sure that their reported accounts get looked into and taken care of. The ability to report for different reasons ex. Harassment, catfishing is great. I think them keeping up with these accounts and holding users accountable for behavior in this way will help with the toxicity in online spaces.
Munchausen Syndrome (or Factitious disorder imposed on self) is when someone pretends to have a disease, like cancer, to get sympathy or attention. People with various illnesses often find support online, and even form online communities. It is often easier to fake an illness in an online community than in an in-person community, so many have done so (like the fake @Sciencing_Bi fake dying of covid in the authenticity chapter). People who fake these illnesses often do so as a result of their own mental illness, so, in fact, “they are sick, albeit […] in a very different way than claimed.”
This is still happening on the internet to this day. There is a community of people that have this syndrome where they validate each other on their "illnesses" even though people irl do not believe them, they ofen choose illnesses that are hard to diagnose or they self diagnose themselves.
What responsibilities do you think social media platforms should have in what their recommendation algorithms recommend?
I think that social media platforms showing the users content its interested is a fair assumption of what the user wants, but it can create echochambers where the user is only seeing the same kind of content. I think it should also push content that the user might be interested, emphasis on the might, leaving more room for the users to decipher and decide instead of keeping them in tunnel vision.
How do you think attribution should work when copying and reusing content on social media (like if you post a meme or gif on social media)?
I think that posting a gif and considering it 'Copying" is a stretch. I think that the internet is so vast and connected that it is very easy to find information on where the gif came from. Also, considering virality, people are not focused on citing sources with things like gifs or videos, the way that our social media platforms are set up, there is no need to put down or care about that information.
In how we’ve been talking about accessible design, the way we’ve been phrasing things has implied a separation between designers who make things, and the disabled people who things are made for. And unfortunately, as researcher Dr. Cynthia Bennett points out, disabled people are often excluded from designing for themselves, or even when they do participate in the design, they aren’t considered to be the “real designers.” You can see Dr. Bennet’s research talk on this in the following Youtube Video:
I think that this a fair point. If you are designing for a specific audience, example people with disabilities, it is very important to include them in your research and building of the product, because they have unique insight. I think designers and people with disabilities should work in tandem more often.
When creating computer programs, programmers can do things that aren’t possible with architecture (where Universal Design came out of), that is: programs can change how they work for each individual user. All people (including disabled people) have different abilities, and making a system that can modify how it runs to match the abilities a user has is called Ability based design.
I think that ability based design is an interesting way to approach helping different uers. Things like dark mode and light mode allow the user to dictate their needs. The burden being put on the designers and programmers seem fair in this case because it is not solely on them, its also on the user to determine and use what fits them, so they have some responsibility as well.
What incentives do social media companies have to be careless with privacy?
Incentives could be them selling our information to other parties to continue selling more advertisements, or selling it just for money. This is non-consensual most of the time. I also believe that companies might overlook fortifying their security protocols because it might take too much time and money.
What are your biggest concerns around privacy on social media?
My serious concern are security breaches. I know that these companies collect a lot o data on us that I hope that some other greater force does not compromise that. Ex. Things like location< important identification numbers, and addresses.
People in the antiwork subreddit found the website where Kellogg’s posted their job listing to replace the workers. So those Redditors suggested they spam the site with fake applications, poisoning the job application data, so Kellogg’s wouldn’t be able to figure out which applications were legitimate or not (we could consider this a form of trolling). Then Kellogg’s wouldn’t be able to replace the striking workers, and they would have to agree to better working conditions.
I think that if data can be easily compromised, it is almost never pure. I think one people become too aware that a certain kind of data matters, they might change their behavior to affect the outcome. I feel like once data collection is more covert, and unnoticeable, (ex. Google) people don't really bother to influence it.
What was accurate, inaccurate, or surprising about your ad profile? How comfortable are you with Google knowing (whether correctly or not) those things about you?
Google knows a lot about me apparently, it knows my sge, income, occupation, and more. I believe that when I see the ads I receive, google can pick out what kind of person I am based on my interactions and interests. I wouldn't say its creepy because I understand that my data is apart of the business transaction for using Google. Data is money nowadays.
Additionally, the inauthentic arguments have long been observed, and were memorably explored by Jean-Paul Sartre as “Bad Faith”. “Bad faith” here means pretending to hold views or feelings, while not actually holding them (this may be intentional, or it may be through self-deception). Sartre particularly observed this in arguments made by antisemites while he lived in Nazi-controlled Paris:
It is interesting to learn about "Bad Faith" arguments. It is unfortunately a very common trolling tactic, that allows for trolls to be absolved from accountability. Its easy to say, "I was just trolling I don't actually believe what I said." Then how do you hold that person accountable? It is an easy excuse.
What do you think is the best way to deal with trolling?
I think that not engaging with a troll is the best way, people say polarizing or offensive things for attention. Until it becomes harassment, then you should block and report them. If it is a lot of trolls and you are an average person, I think its worth disconnecting from social media for a while until it boils over because the internet is not reality, and you can leave or take a break if a lot of people are harassing you.
If we wanted people to be able to enter other countries we could make a country drop-down tool to select a country, but then would we auto-fill it with a country? If there is a list of countries to scroll through, what order do we put them in? If it’s alphabetical, that will make it easier for people in countries whose name starts with “A.”
I think that companies should design these forms based on their audience demographics. If majority of users are from the UK, they should be on the top, same with USA, Canada, Mongolia, etc. And then the rest should be in alphabetical, this is a utilitarian approach.
While we don’t have direct access to all the data ourselves, we can imagine that different definitions would lead to different results. And there isn’t a “best” or “unbiased” definition we should be using, since all definitions are simplifications that will help with some tasks and hurt with others.
It makes sense that different definitions lead to different results, elon might've defined it as human/not human whereas the CEO might view it as a collaboration of people and automation. I think it is important to specify definitions like bots because in the court of law they have real impact and a lot of money can be at stake.
Why do you think social media platforms allow bots to operate? Why would users want to be able to make bots? How does allowing bots influence social media sites’ profitability?
I think social medias benefit from the bots because they create more engagement, they push out more tweets/comments so this helps their platform that is supported by people interacting with it. They also streamline the tediousness of posting/tweeting, it is automated so once you set it up that is all the work you'd have to do.
How are people’s expectations different for a bot and a “normal” user?
I think people's expectations of a bot compared to a normal user is that they might not take it as seriously because it is an automated thing. It is only there really to relay information that the programmer wanted to put on a specific schedule. If I saw an account that was a bot, I'd just think, "Oh its just a bot." Whereas with a normal user I would imagine a real person is behind the screen and consciously putting out the content they want to.
“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.
I think Rational selfishness is becoming more popular in today's culture because of the rise in individualism. I think society has progressed to where people don't need to rely on each other as much to survive, and social mobility is much more achievable. But this comes at the expense of others, if you do whatever benefits yourself at all times, that means you might not care about people and it can and will ruin your relationships. Selfishness is only positive for one's self, but as humans we need community and support so I don't think this is a sustainable mentality.
What changes to Twitter could have changed how this story went?
I think the information about her location and the time and date provided information to people about where she was - although she put the nail in the coffin by saying that she was going to Africa. Clues about her location allowed people to find where she was in real time which could be dangerous even though her tweet was morally wrong.