I think it's interesting how strange or gross food videos can become so popular on social media in I27. I've noticed that even when people dislike a video, they still comment on it or share it with others, which ends up giving it more attention. I think some creators purposely make ridiculous content because they know people will react to it, whether positively or negatively. This shows how social media can reward attention grabbing content rather than content people actually enjoy.

I think it's interesting how social media algorithms can so strongly influence what becomes popular online. Algorithms have heavy influence on what people see online. I've noticed on TikTok that if I search for something, other types of videos pop up on my feed hours later. Sometimes posts get a lot of attention because people are angry or disagree with them, not necessarily because the content is good. I think that this can lead to people to post controversial things for financial purposes or ragebait.

I thought the article k17 was interesting because Facebook's algorithm gave more weight to angry reactions than likes. It shows how recommendation algorithms can encourage negative content to spread simply because it gets more engagement. This can be concerning because people might end up seeing more controversial or misleading posts instead of content that is actually useful. It makes me wonder why platforms would prioritize engagement so much when it can have negative effects on their users.

I think one way to improve recommendation algorithms is to give users more control over what appears on their feeds. For example, users could choose between personalized recommendations and a chronological feed. Platforms could also work on reducing the promotion of misleading or harmful content instead of prioritizing posts just because they get a lot of attention. This would allow people to have a better experience without being influenced as heavily by the algorithm.

I thought that the article j23 was interesting because I never really considered how important image descriptions are for people who have trouble seeing. Since social media relies so much on pictures and videos, I can see how not having descriptions could make it difficult for some people to understand certain posts. I think social media platforms should make it easier for users to add image descriptions so that everyone has a better chance of understanding the same content.

I think universal design is a really important concept because people with disabilities shouldn't always have to be the ones adjusting to their environment. Instead, I feel like designers should consider different people's needs from the beginning. Something that stood out to me is how features like ramps and elevators don't just help people with disabilities, but can also make things easier for everyone. I think this idea should also be applied more to technology, especially since so many people rely on it in their everyday lives.

I was surprised in the article i8 to learn that Facebook stored millions of Instagram passwords in plain text instead of properly protecting them. I would've expected such a large company to have better security, especially since so many people trust them with their personal information. This makes me wonder how often companies make security mistakes that users never find out about. I think companies should be more careful because even a small mistake could put millions of people's information at risk.

My biggest concern about privacy on social media is how much personal information companies collect without users fully realizing it. I also worry about this information getting leaked or stolen if a company gets hacked. Social media companies have a reason to protect privacy because it helps build trust with users and keeps people using their platforms. However, companies also have reasons to violate privacy because collecting more personal information allows them to create targeted ads and make more money. They might also be careless with privacy because improving security can be expensive, and some companies may care more about making profits than protecting their users. I think companies should be more responsible with people's information and be clear about what they collect and how they use it.

I thought the Kellogg’s example was interesting because it shows how data poisoning can be used for more than just causing problems. In this case, people were using fake job applications to support workers who wanted better working conditions. I can understand why they did it, especially since the workers were being treated unfairly. However, I also think it brings up an ethical question. Is data poisoning still considered wrong if people are using it to fight for something they believe is right.

I thought that h22 was interesting and surprising because one TikTok video was able to affect thousands of scientific studies when it wasnt the intention in the first place. What stood out to me was that so many people in a similar age group started taking the surveys, which made the results less reliable. I think this shows how easily research can be affected by social media. It also makes me wonder how researchers can ensure they collect accurate data from different groups, especially when online trends can change so quickly.

I chose the source g29. During COVID, I had a lot of free time and started exploring new things, including listening to new music like K-pop. I actually remember being part of the K-pop community and contributing to some of the online activities during that time, but I didn't realize things went as far as crashing the app. I think it's incredible how a community that I was part of, which was built around music, was able to make such a big impact on a serious issue. What surprised me the most was how organized and dedicated the community was, especially since we were able to use our online presence for something completely unrelated to music. It really shows how much influence online communities can have when people work together.

I thought it was interesting how trolling existed long before the internet, especially through things like practical jokes and pranks. I always assumed trolling started with social media because that's where I see it the most. I was also surprised to learn that trolling was common in early online games and message boards. It makes me realize that even though technology has changed, the way people behave toward others hasn't changed that much. I think the internet has just made trolling easier because people can hide behind screens and sometimes don't have to face the consequences of their actions.

I've seen parasocial relationships a lot on TikTok, especially when influencers share their daily routines, personal stories, and problems with their followers. I think this makes people feel like they personally know the influencer, even though they've never actually met. I've noticed how some fans will defend their favorite creators like they know them. I think parasocial relationships can be authentic when influencers genuinely care about their audience and are honest about their lives. However, they can become inauthentic when influencers pretend to have a personal connection with their followers just to gain views, money, or attention. I think it's important to remember that even though we see so much of someone's life online, we don't actually know them personally.

I thought that the discussion in f33 was relatable about social media and anxiety is because social media has become such a big part of our everyday lives. I've noticed that on TikTok, people can become really focused on how many views, likes, or comments they receive. I think this can create unnecessary pressure, especially for younger people who might compare themselves to others online. It makes me wonder if social media would be less stressful if people weren't able to see how many likes or views a post received. I believe that without these numbers being visible, people might focus more on sharing things they genuinely enjoy rather than trying to get attention from others.

I thought that e13 was pretty interesting because the source ended in .gov, meaning the government was involved in a way, so it grabbed my attention first. It was surprising how Facebook was accused of buying competing platforms instead of trying to improve its own app to compete with them. This makes me wonder how different social media apps would look today if smaller platforms had more opportunities to grow. I think having more competition isn't really a bad thing in this context because it can encourage companies to come up with new ideas to help make their app better so that they can attract more users and potentially stand out from other platforms instead of relying on buying out their competitors.

I found it interesting that adding friction to social media isn't always a bad thing. For example, Twitter asking users to read an article before reposting it seems like a good way to reduce misinformation. I've never really seen social media implement anything like this, so it is refreshing to see a new way social media companies help prevent the spread of false information. But I also wonder how effective this actually is, since people can still repost without reading it. I think it would be interesting to see whether these small changes actually influence people's decisions or if most users don't care about it.

I looked at article d14 and something I found interesting was that it shows that numbers can mean different things depending on the assumptions and the context it is being used in. This adds more to the chapter's point about data is a simplification of reality and that even simple-looking facts may not be as straightforward as it seems.

One idea from this chapter (4.2) that stood out to me was basically the title. All data simplifies reality. I thought that the apple example was interesting. The apple example showed that even simple data depends on the choices we make about what to measure. Four apples can be counted equally, but they are not the same size or weight, so it's not fair. This made me realize that when people debate statistics like bots on Twitter, they may not just disagree about the numbers themselves but also the meaning behind the numbers. I think this example is a good reminder not to trust everything on the internet and to question if the data is reliable or not.

For the source c10, this source describes astroturfing, which is when a person or organization creates the false appearance of widespread public support for an idea or cause. I thought this was interesting because bots can be used to make opinions seem more popular than they really are, which can influence how people think about an issue.

Social media platforms allow bots because bots can provide useful services and increase user engagement. Many bots can automatically share news updates, weather reports, sports scores, or helpful information that users want to see. These bots can perform tasks much faster and more consistently than human users. So, social media platforms can financially benefit from bots because they are active all the time and can increase the amount of content being posted and interacted with on the site. Basically, more activity means users spend more time on the platform, which can lead to increased advertising revenue. I think it's also important to note that bots need monitoring because it can be risky when they spread misinformation, spam, or manipulate public opinion.

I want to add something about Ubuntu. The section defines it as "a person is a person through other people” which, in my opinion, sounds a bit vague and can be hard for some to understand. So I would like to share my thinking about it. I think it means you can't be a complete person on your own. You become complete through how you treat others and how you participate in your community, so a person who ignores or hurts others isn't living up to what it means to be a person based on morals and ethics.

I think that tech workers have the responsibility to ask whether they should build something, not just whether they can do it. Kumali noticed that the people he met were excited about what their technology could do but had never thought about how it might be misused. Once it's out there, it's out there; it can't be taken back, so it is important to double-check for anything that could cause harm before a product is released. Waiting for safeguards after isn't enough, because technology changes much faster than laws do. The people who build a product understand it best, so they are in the best position to notice problems early.