---
# System prepended metadata

title: Reading Responses (Set 2)

---

# Reading Responses (Set 2)

## Reading responses 5 out of 5

### Oct 25 Tuesday - Shaped

“I’ll stare directly at the sun, but never in the mirror” (Taylor Swift, Anti-Hero). In Taylor Swift’s newest album, which came out last week, she examined the themes of self-esteem and social comparison in some of her more vulnerable songs. Her desire to avoid confronting herself is not an experience unique to her, and this feeling drives a sense of desperation to control your presentation, as is possible through social media. In a study looking at whether people feel better about themselves when left with their Facebook profile or a mirror, it was found that those who look at their profile (and don’t begin to browse other profiles) felt the best about themselves after. This shows how unrealistic comparisons over social media, or even comparisons from your best photo to how you look on any other day, can damage your self-esteem. The more we pose and edit and filter, the more we’ll fear our reflection in the mirror. 

I felt that Reagle’s discussion around the need for self-esteem and the “perils and promise of praise” was interesting. While it makes sense that complimenting fixed characteristics is less beneficial than commenting on variable aspects of character, I would still argue against the idea perpetuated by “Chinese parents” that self-esteem is less important than success. I went to a predominantly Asian middle school and found myself in the minority for the first time in my life. I was surrounded by successful students, who I’m sure pleased their parents with their grades, but it was an undue amount of stress and pressure and a mindset that I regrettably adopted. An A- is an “Asian fail,” it doesn’t matter what you learned, it matters how it affected your GPA. Outcome over esteem doesn’t feel good.

Finally, the concept of quantification and the use of scales, rankings, and lists is both pervasive and problematic. I completely agree that they are used as a “gesture of social power” and this “Bo Derek scale” is used to degrade women. Digital platforms invite these unwelcome comments and numbers, most commonly now the phrase “mid,” in an attempt to spread insecurities.

### Oct 28 Friday - TikTok, fakes, and appropriation

Actress and singer Ariana Grande has “played” every race. While Cherid’s article on blackfishing mentioned Grande’s dark tan and appropriation of accessories and AAVE, she has more recently exaggerated her eyes in an “Asian” style and worked to monetize her ethnic ambiguity. While this is more likely to be acknowledged when done by such a famous celebrity, Kim’s article “On Techno-Orientalism” explains that photo-shopping technology is so advanced and widespread that we might not even notice when Asian-fishing or Black-fishing is being done. The normalization of AAVE, or Black English, through social media platforms such as TikTok is yet another example of white people taking the privileges while avoiding the consequences of Blackness, one that I expected these articles to cover. While the currency on this app is often views and likes rather than money, people take what is seen as popular, even if it’s an aspect of another culture, and use it to their benefit. This leads to the butchering of words and phrases such as “on fleek” or “slay,” and the re-labeling of these terms as Gen-Z speak, taking what was once deemed inappropriate for Black Americans to use and making it popular for White Americans. 

Additionally, whenever I think about cultural appropriation, as defined by Cherid, I think of my mom. She doesn’t fully understand the difference between cultural appropriation and appreciation and worries she has potentially crossed the line before. She’s white, but a Spanish teacher who has worked to understand, and truly appreciates, Latinx culture. Does she count as profiting off of her closeness to the culture? She doesn’t try to appear Latinx and is clear about her ethnicity with her students, but does her potential promotion of stereotypes cause more harm than good? This opens a whole new conversation about intent versus impact. 

![](https://i.imgur.com/eRkfetZ.png)


### Nov 1 Tuesday - Finding someone and living alone

Somewhat in protest at this point, I’m one of the few to have avoided dating apps and the catfishing, crazy stories that come with them. As Thompson expressed the pros and cons to a dating world that relies on apps, I definitely have felt more affected by the cons. Online dating seems to be exclusively surface level and a breeding ground for dangerous situations, especially for women. Making sure to FaceTime them first, meet in public, and share your date’s information and your location with a friend can help mitigate risks, but just dating someone you know removes these risks almost entirely. I still hold out hope for a return of romance and rom-com meet cutes.

While OKCupid’s blog on the lies of online dating covered height, age of images, and personal finances, I feel that it left out some of the more harmful lies that can be told over an app. Hearing the stories that make their way into Netflix documentaries, it makes sense that OKCupid has no interest in sharing some of the grim realities of looking for love online. I’m also intrigued by the fact that men AND women over exaggerate their height by two inches. Even the blog gave no potential explanation for this phenomenon, as shorter women find more matches. Maybe women over-report to weed out some of the men lying about their heights? I’d be interested to find another study on this. 

Finally, online dating is an aspect of our new culture around dating and marriage, but both Thompson and Chamie refrain from concluding causation. Trends towards later marriage and living alone make online dating a more accessible way of meeting people, but these trends are caused by changing values towards independence and career-first mindsets.


### Nov 4 Friday - Ads and social graph background

If you were interested in buying a car, you wouldn’t want the dealership to know what you want and how much you want it. But by giving companies our personal information and preferences, often unintentionally, we are making as grave an error as telling the salesman you’ll do anything for that perfect car. Online advertising works so well compared to traditional advertising because it allows companies to track your engagement and get quantifiable data from you.

Advertisers can use a variety of ways to display adverts to get views, clicks, or purchases, fulfilling whatever objective the company has set. One way of display, interstitial banners, seems uncommon nowadays. I can’t picture a situation where an ad was shown between pages while loading on a website, and if that were to happen, I would be concerned about malware. I’m also curious about map adverts, and whether the names of establishments worked into verbal directions, like “Turn right after Panda Express,” are paid advertisements or just aids in not getting lost. 

Stokes also discussed how to get your advertisements online, be that through advertising networks, advertising exchanges, or social media. While I don’t use Facebook or Twitter, the types of social media ads reminded me of TikTok ads. In a new initiative for transparency around advertisements, TikTok marks videos as “sponsored” or “paid partnerships,” which has just led to people immediately scrolling past and those ads getting lower engagement. I’ll see videos of creators complaining that they get few views on their sponsored posts. I wonder what the solution to this would be. 

Finally, targeting (or more specifically behavioral targeting) is where the world of online advertising begins to scare consumers. Vox’s video “How ads follow you around the internet” explains how third-party cookies and other workarounds are to blame for seeing advertisements everywhere for something you just looked up. This is what creeps consumers out because it means that personal data and digital history are being stored (as is with all online advertising). I would recommend that advertisers use less of this because people would not remember to care about this privacy breach if it was more subtle. 

### Nov 8 Tuesday - Manipulated

The only platform I’ve ever written a review for is Find Me Gluten Free, for sourcing good gluten-free restaurants near you. While I admit I don’t know the inner workings of this platform, or if restaurants have ever paid consumers to write a review, it seems that this platform has avoided many of the pitfalls that larger review platforms have faced. The possibility of reviews being purchased, either to make your business look good or the competitors look bad, has crossed my mind before. However, I tend to be overly trusting of what strangers on the Internet have to say about a product.

I do wonder what the criteria are for a review to be considered “bought.” While Reagle’s chapter examined free products being distributed to Amazon top reviewers like E.Z or those who partake in Amazon’s vine program, this is a phenomenon that has taken over TikTok. Thankfully, most of the content creators will acknowledge that the product was given to them for free, or they’ll do the opposite and say that they were not paid for this “advertisement,” but it is still a potentially inauthentic display of the product. How much harm can come from one content creator’s video?

Additionally, “takers” who try to make the shady nature of purchased reviews work for them are unsurprising. The idea of a ReviewerCard to flash your status as a potential reviewer to waitstaff is very similar to a trend I’ve seen on TikTok of going to restaurants alone and bringing a notebook and pen. This makes it seem like you’re an official reviewer, will improve service, and even potentially score you some free food, all by masquerading as something you’re not.

Finally, review bombing seems to be the newest and most damaging form of punishment. Someone will be recorded saying or doing something inappropriate, the Internet finds their workplace, and all of a sudden every review says the food sucks and they got food poisoning. While I agree that there should be consequences for someone’s actions, dishonest reviews purely intended to hurt a business cross a line. One TikTok I saw was of a woman being denied her service dog at a restaurant and all of the commenters fled to Yelp. The creator tried unsuccessfully to undo the damage, as she felt guilty for the reaction, but the Internet continued to leave nasty, unprompted reviews anyway.
