**September 30 Tue - Cooperation**

***Joseph Reagle, 2015, Gossip,” ***

In this section, Gossip in 1. Comment: The Bottom Half of the Web, Joseph Reagle analyzes how Robin Dunbar’s research shows that gossip is essential to social life. When he was studying primates, he found that primates, especially humans, have large brains. He realized that brain size was not due to a diet or environment, but to group size and the time they spent grooming one another. Dunbar also notes that grooming helps build alliances, resolve conflicts, and maintain group stability. Humans and gossip go together because it acts like grooming and keeps social bonds alive. Gossip from Dunbar can be described as an "evaluative social chat," which helps alliances by spreading information about people to others. The number 150 is the cognitive limit that Dunbar believes is how many relationships humans can manage before it becomes too much in both in real life and online. Once that number exceeds 150, relationships can become too complex, and people start falling off. They compare the size to examples such as early farming communities and the number of soldiers in a military company.

Humans cooperate because our large brains evolved to manage social groups and communicate with one another. Dunbar's research showed that primates with large brains are used for handling relationships, not just for finding food or navigating their surroundings. For humans, grooming helps us create bonds, understand one another, and share and withhold information. Cooperation succeeds when people trust trustworthy people, people who are loyal, and people who might be a threat, but cooperation fails when the groups exceed 150 people. Dunbar's number of 150 marks the number of stable, cooperative relationships we can manage. After this number, relationships get shaky, conflicts increase, and people struggle to keep up. Dunbar's ideas about the role of gossip can also apply to what we see online, where communities thrive until we reach that threshold of 150.

----------------------------------------------------------

**Oct 07 Tue - Catfishing and scams**

***Evita March, 2023, What kinds of people ‘catfish’? Study finds they have higher psychopathy, sadism, and narcissism***

In the article "What kinds of people ‘catfish’? Study finds they have higher psychopathy, sadism, and narcissism" by Evita March, the author discusses the dangers of online dating, her research on catfishers’ personality traits, and signs of a potential romantic scam. The article starts with the statistic that three out of the four Australian users on dating apps have experienced sexual violence. March conducted a study to identify the psychological traits common among individuals involved in catfishing behavior and found that it was linked to higher psychopathy, sadism, and narcissism. There was also previous research that found that catfishers often feel unhappy with themselves, experience loneliness, and use deception as a way to escape. Finally, the article mentions how there are ways to identify a potential romance scam. People who never call, love bomb, ask for money, communicate strangely, seem too good to be true, and contact you first are all potential signs of a catfishing scenario. 

The psychology behind the catfishers and victims is the underlying personality traits and emotional factors that both parties have. According to Evita March’s research, she found that people who catfish have higher levels of psychopathy, sadism, and narcissism. This shows that they are less inclined to feel empathy, enjoy manipulation, and crave control over others, showing that catfishers are motivated by power and attention to fulfill their need for loneliness and social inclusion. On the other hand, people who fall victim to these scams may have strong desires for intimacy, trust more, and be emotionally vulnerable. Scammers can use their love bombing tactics to reel the victim in. Together, the personality traits in perpetrators and the emotional needs in victims create a world where deception and vulnerability come together.

----------------------------------------------------------
**Oct 10 Fri - Haters**

***Zoe Williams, 2024 Racism, misogyny, lies: how did X become so full of hatred? And is it ethical to keep using it?***

In the article “Racism, misogyny, lies: how did X become so full of hatred? And is it ethical to keep using it?” by Zoe Williams, she raises awareness about how X (previously known as Twitter) has been a source for people to find online hatred, misinformation, and social harm. Williams argues that the harmful content attracts users, leading to a larger audience and increasing income for the company. Zoe also discusses how accounts that have been banned from other platforms, such as Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson, are continuing their harmful behavior on X. X has little to no enforcement of policies or rules on the platform, which can be a serious problem. The author also debates whether users have an ethical responsibility to stay or leave the platform. She discusses the idea that if enough users left X, could X lose its power and relevance?

Digital communication allows toxic behavior because some digital platforms, like X, encourage toxic behavior rather than preventing it. The black box algorithm pushes posts out that have high engagement (likes, shares, etc), whether it is harmful or not. Because of the attention it receives, users who post hateful content receive visibility and money. For example, Laurence Fox and Wayne O’Rourke profit thousands from their disturbing content. Another example would be the blue checkmark. Usually, when we see a blue checkmark, it means that the creator is verified and authoritative. With this checkmark being something you can buy, it makes it easier for people to spread misinformation and harass other people without consequences. The lack of real-world accountability allows toxic behavior to happen because platforms like X will enable this type of behavior.

----------------------------------------------------------
Oct 14 Tue - The darknet

***Nik Custodio, 2013, Explain Bitcoin like I’m five***

“Explain Bitcoin Like I’m Five,” by Nik Custodio, is an article that explains Bitcoin in a simplified and easier way for those who do not understand it well, like me. Nik starts by comparing an apple to a digital apple. If he handed me an apple, the apple is mine. There was no third party involved. However, a digital apple given to me is a different scenario. He makes a point using the double-spending problem, where the digital apple could’ve been sent around, making it not only mine. The last issue that is addressed is that the records of apples held could be controlled to cheat the system by adding more apples or altering the records. To address this problem, we would make the records available to everyone, with all the transactions recorded and verified. This article explores the four key properties that Bitcoins (also known as apples) possess: no double-spending, a public system, scarcity, and being fully digital.

The darknet, known as the “dark net,” is kept out of public view, purposely hidden, and is accessible with special software, configuration, or permission. The two technologies that enable the darknet are Tor and Bitcoin. Tor, short for The Onion Router, can be used to hide someone’s IP address or location when on a darknet site and access websites anonymously. This allows people to visit websites without revealing their location or identity. Bitcoin serves as a currency within the darknet. Bitcoin allows people to buy or sell items on darknet websites. Together, Tor and Bitcoin work to allow people to communicate or buy/sell goods anonymously.

----------------------------------------------------------
Oct 24 Fri - Shaped

***Joseph Reagle, 2015, “Shaped: Aw shit, I have to update my Twitter,” Reading the Comments, ch=6.***

Do you ever feel that the way you put yourself online affects how you see yourself more than you think? In Chapter 6 of Shaped: “Aw Shit, I Have to Update My Twitter,” Joseph Reagle analyzes how online comments and social media can shape people's self-esteem, attention, and sense of identity. He begins with the story of Jamey Rodemeyer, who exemplified how the internet can be both supportive and discouraging. Jamey, who participated in the It Gets Better Project, received support in coming out about his sexuality, but ended his life due to the harassment he received from Formspring. Reagle connects the idea of self-presentation from Erving Goffman that people curate how they are seen through online profiles. Studies show that people who can control their self-image by editing their online profiles feel more confident. The chapter notes that constant exposure to stereotypical images can hurt someone's self-perception and can inspire people to do cosmetic surgery. Reagle uses the example of cosmetic surgery in South Korea and how it can be exhausting when you constantly compare yourself to perfection. Lastly, he speaks on concerns about a "narcissism epidemic" where psychologists Twenge and Campbell argued that indulgent parenting and social media can define our self-worth and make us lose ourselves. This connects to "quantification," where websites like Klout can turn into an obsessive numbers game rather than social interactions. To combat these issues, Reagle suggests that we need new forms of awareness and discipline. He uses Howard Rheingold's Net Smart to propose strategies for maintaining focus and self-esteem in a world surrounded by comparing and commenting.

Digital communication influences mindfulness and self-esteem. Reagle's points about social comparisons and how they can make us feel negatively connect with how difficult it is to maintain mindfulness. Platforms with comments and likes prompt us to react quickly instead of reflecting deeply and logically. Our self-esteem can decrease if we see a post that makes us feel bad about ourselves. It does make us a little narcissistic because we become so obsessed with reaching a standard and how something so small can feel so huge.