## Reading Responses (Set 1) - Leyan Li
### Feb 04 Fri - Fake News
As Danah Boyd mentioned in her speech ["Did Media Literacy Backfire?"](https://points.datasociety.net/did-media-literacy-backfire-7418c084d88d#.d46kox6e1), people (or social media users) tend to believe in information that resonates with their already held beliefs (p.7), the phenomenon of which is called ["cognitive bias"](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963#:~:text=A%20cognitive%20bias%20is%20a,and%20judgments%20that%20they%20make.&text=Cognitive%20biases%20are%20often%20a,attempt%20to%20simplify%20information%20processing.) by many scholars, meaning that people's world of view is shaped through their own lens. Apart from that, I do think algorithms of social media platforms nowadays tend to show the user's exact interest on their home page instead of those of opposite opinions, facilitating the creation of "echo chambers" in a certain way, thus bringing greater barriers to the effort of improving people's media literacy.

In the [timeline](https://mediamanipulation.org/case-studies/recontextualized-media-biden-voter-fraud-organization) of Biden's "voter fraud organization" case provided by Emily Dreyfuss, what I have noticed is that fact-checking did work, but they came too late compared with how widespread the fake news had become. Mainstream media stepped in at least 2 days after the information's initial publication and conducted credible fact-check regarding the piece of news, but given how viral the piece of news had become, and the fact that stories published by mainstream media would gain less engagement as proposed in [the analysis of Silverman](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook), to what extent these truth could reach a broader audience and change people's misbeliefs?

On an individual level, how we could possibly deal with the fact that fake news has become a nearly inevitable part of the virtual world remains crucial. As advised by one of the professors back at my home university, two possible tactics we could turn to may be:

1) Reconsider the necessity of closely following the latest news. Do we really have to know about an event as soon as possible? What about waiting for a couple few days when credible mainstream media have published deep and detailed investigations?
2) Restrict our source of news. Keep checking on a handful of reliable media or news agencies instead of acquiring news from social media, which can be emotional and inaccurate.

### Feb 8 Tue - Learning
In this first chapter of *Make It Stick*, the author mainly argues about the effectiveness of repetition in the process of learning and also addresses some of our misunderstandings on knowledge and learning.

What interests me most is the mention of standardized testing. The author thinks this kind of testing “leads to an emphasis on memorization at the expense of high-level skills”. Having received my previous education in China, where standardized testing is used as the main method of evaluation, I deeply agree with the author’s statement.

In China’s examination-oriented education system, what we did to pass the exams was exactly an endless repetition of what was in our textbooks, especially for subjects such as Chinese and English. Students recited important texts that may appear in exams, but did we really understand what these authors try to convey through those well-written articles? “Rising familiarity with a text and fluency in reading it can create an illusion of mastery”. This is exactly how I feel about my past education.

In my opinion, education of high quality must be one that emphasizes understanding instead of familiarity. What is worth memorizing is definitely not the text itself, but the thoughts of the great minds behind it.

At the same time, it does seem to me that the education mode encouraged by the author in this book requires enough resources in practice. Will less-developed societies still have equal access when people still have to compete for educational resources?

### Feb 18 - Social Networks
The concept of "networked individualism" (p. 208) is fascinating as it precisely describes the Internet and technology's impact on modern society. This construction lays great emphasis on an individual's ability to navigate among networks and reach out for resources. But is it the case for all societies?

Take China, where I grew up, as an example. Anthropologist Xiaotong Fei has argued that Chinese society is organized by a "diversity-orderly structure", influenced mainly by kinship or family. In Chinese society, people tend to "categorize" their social network in a way similar to ripples, with family and relatives at the center, close friends, and "others" on the outer ring.

But it isn't the fact that "networked individualism" does not exist in China. From my point of view, this seems to be another layer of social networks that is gradually changing the society. The younger generation, especially those who have been exposed to Western societies, may build their own social networks in a way resonating "networked individualism". But back at home, they are still involved in another layer of the network organized by "diversity-orderly structure".

The interesting difference can not only partly reflect two societies' values of collectivism and individualism, but is also related to my personal experience of trying to get used to how connections can be formed in a slightly different way here.

### Feb 22 - Haters
In the case of Goodreads, Meadows argued that "the architecture of the site made subsequent conflagrations all but inevitable" (p. 18). What this argument makes me think is that, to what extent does the design of a platform account for virtual bullies?

In Goodreads' story, it's because "author and reader spaces overlapped", facilitating readers' negative reviews in favor of themselves or the authors they support. If this is the case, what if Goodreads separates author and reader spaces and mechanically decreases the possibility of overlapping? Is there a better way of platform designing that puts people at a place where they are less likely to "deindividualize" or "depersonalize"? Is it possible to bring into existence more "social clues" to online communities?

However, individuals should take more responsibility than platforms. After all, it's an individual's own choice to troll, or to give out negative, insulting, or harassing comments to others online. Media literacy education should not only focus on how people can discern the accuracy of news sources, but should also teach people how to respect others and adhere to certain community rules.

At the same time, related legislation should also be improved. Though regulation of hate speech, for example, Meta's ban on certain contents, may be complained about by some as opposed to freedom of speech, we should draw a line for "freedom". The quote "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins" may be a great illustrator of the line hate speech and online harassment.

### Feb 25 - The Dark Web
It is shocking to learn that the Tor technology was first funded by the Office of Naval Research, and now “one end of the U.S. government is trying to crack the secret code funded by another”.

On one hand, Tor can successfully help protect privacy when needed, benefiting high-end transactions. On the other hand, the very feature of this technology is used by some involved in harmful, illegal, even anti-social activities to remain completely unknown.

It’s reasonable to argue that it’s how people use it, instead of technology itself, that poses a threat to society. But for me, that depends on bad possible consequences could be.

Similar debates can be seen when people are arguing about the emergence of any new technology. Video games can be relaxing, but also addictive. Nuclear power can be efficient, but also disastrous. The possible negative effects of video games and nuclear bombs are clearly different.

Therefore, since we can never completely pull back the harmful consequences caused by Tor, we shall at least reconsider the necessity and possible risks when developing new technologies. Do we need more advanced technology to protect these data? At the same time, will this also become a “tragedy of the commons”, as if one party does not continuously upgrade its technologies, other parties will do?