There is no "one size fits all" for ethics usage in terms of data. I think what matters most are base questions on "how people are affected" and "what actions are deemed universally appropriate". Consequentially, no two people have the same morals as the other. While it would be nice if everyone had the same standard to follow the same set of rules so that it would be easy for everyone to follow the rules, the real world isn't like that and we have to be sensitive to these things because it could be a cultural belief.

I've also heard that because the images are often compressed because we, as humans, have 3D features that does not translate into a 2D image. Thus, some people are not photogenic as a result. I think it's interesting that due to compressors, computers also need to find ways to run as efficiently as possible while also keeping the desired quality.

Is there any way that a bot can go uncorrupted? Or does the code have to be edited manually by the people behind it so that it can continue on with new functions to avoid being corrupted?

There was a similar comic that I've seen, where a person describes logic as being able to create weapons of mass destruction. Emotions uses them. It's a bit scary to think about the disconnect, considering that it's the people behind it that are the ones to blame since they are the ones that are sentient, while bots are non-sentient and carrying out orders without regard for consequences.

There's an argument on the Christian God's existence that the universe is too perfect (containing all the laws that should make the universe function as it should) to have not been made by a creator. Though I think that if we look at the Divine Command Theory from a perspective that "it's good because it's loved by the gods, or it's loved by the god's because it's good" is a bit counter-intuitive. If we take this from a Christian perspective and that God made the universe according to his will and the laws within it (including the ten commandments), then it is set on the standards on what God also believes to be pious in action. Thus, the said action is only pious according to God because he said so. Still, even as someone who was raised with the Christian faith, I'm not entirely set on the Divine Command Theory because it kind of undermines the belief that God also gave us free will to do what we want. Speaking in the extreme sense here, even if someone was doing what was considered morally wrong in the eyes of others (say, killing someone for a ritual sacrifice because God demanded it), most people would hesitate on whether or not a being like God would actually permit such violence (unless in the case of self defense. Furthermore, ritual sacrifice was done away with for the Christian beliefs because they believe that Jesus became the sacrificial lamb so that there wouldn't have to be anymore physical sacrifices. Not to mention if the being they were to worship was something like the "Spaghetti god", we're not exactly sure if those can be taken seriously even if the following is a recognized cult by law). And considering that some words can be twisted to suit the needs of selfish people, if we are following the Christian perspective it would violate the 2nd Commandment of 'taking the Lord's name in vain', as it does not permit people twisting the Word of God for selfish benefit (E.G. political movements, etc.).

Given that coding is essentially giving commands to a machine to perform a specific task, I wonder how coding has changed today given how programming was done years ago. Is the syntax the way it is now the same as it was years ago? Or did they change to make things more efficient as technology improved?

While media is not the equivalent of real life, it certainly is a reflection of society. Every media is. Whether it's a movie, a book, a website, it's a reflection of the society that we live in, the needs of said people, the wants of said people and how prevalent said beliefs are. And that exposure to media only further influences people to believe what they see on screen. After all, we are what we behold.

Twitter is a platform that thrives on engagement. The more people that engage with your post, the more that it will spread around. Because it would be considered an outrageous post for most people by today's standards, the shock factor makes people want to see and engage with it (whether it be positive or negative), and then it becomes a cycle (especially since there may also be a mob mentality taking place).

With every social media site, there is an intended audience that it caters to. Of course, it cannot be without it's content creation, and as such we are all content creators in a sense. If you're an artist, a place like deviantart would likely be the place to share your portfolio. Linkedin is a place that is specifically designed to allow people to network for potential job opportunities. It all depends on who they're trying to market to.

Considering the context of the situation, it seems that it's a case of "You were so focused on what you could do that you didn't stop to think if you should do it." These days, it seems that competition breeds the desire for getting ahead of said competitor on what you can do to gain an advantage. In a capitalistic society, people desire to have a control over the market, and having technology that can do new things that it couldn't before is marked as 'an advancement'. Of course, it can be useful for various things, but the concerns on what it could also be used for in a harmful way is still a valid concern amongst many. Many people are so focused on their greed that they didn't stop to consider how many people it could harm in the process.