# Georgia Richman
###### tags: `CDA`
# Reading Responses (Set 2)

### March 17 Tue - Ads & Social Graph Background

I always believed ads were just useless, harmless, meaningless little pictures on the side of my most used websites. However, I learned that could be incorrect. Ads, according to the video by Vox and Cleo Abrams, are used as tracking. The video really showed me the negative light of ads and what they really mean when they show you the same "pair of jeans" over and over again. In the video "How ads follow you around the internet" they describe the tracking of the ads as "as long as these companies have a common goal of showing you ads for things you're likely to buy, they'll be motivated to share information with each other... about you" (Vox). This is a scary thought, that these companies all only want to share your interests and information with each other. It is frightening to think about how much, and what kind of information is out there without my knowledge.

However, then I read Stokes and Online Advertising and saw a more textbook explanation and understanding of what ads see and track. Stokes wrote that ads could track a person's connection type, browser, operating system, time of day, and internet service provider (Stokes, 311). After reading this chapter by Stokes, I have a much better understanding of what an ad tracks. Although since Stokes was written in 2014, I have to wonder if his information is a little outdated. Vox put out their YouTube video in 2020 which contained different and more intense information. Have ads gained the capability to track more than just a few pieces of information? I would think yes. I would hypothesize that ads can tell a lot more about a viewer now and be a lot more dangerous (like what Vox was saying) than most consumers realize.

### March 21 Fri - Manipulated

Two years ago, I received my first threat while working at my local pizzeria.. The guy called and said, "If the pizza is not here in five minutes, I am going to leave a bad review." I was so distraught that we were going to receive a bad review, I thought I was going to get fired. This customer interaction will always remind me to never trust reviews. One unhappy customer (his unhappiness was not even a valid complaint) does not define the entire pizzeria or restaurant. While reading the book and article for today, I realized that my distrust for reviews is actually extremely valid and that I shouldn't trust them anyway. While reading the article, "Those 10,000 5-star reviews are fake. Now they’ll also be illegal" by Geoffrey Fowler, I came to understand just how many fake reviews there are. Fowler discusses the FTC's new plan for finding fake reviewers. Now, in my case the guy was not necessarily leaving a fake review, but he could not wait 45 minutes at 7 pm on a Friday for his pizza. But it is still the idea that one bad instance does not define a place. I think the FTC's plan, although a little unrealistic, is a start in fixing online reviews.

Online reviews are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they help businesses tremendously. Research has shown that better reviews were associated with better sales and that the more comments about an item, the increase in sales (Reagle 2015). However, it is also said that 1/3 of reviews are fake so where is the line? I think the FTC is on the right course. They also reported that Amazon blocked more than 200 million fake reviews in 2022 and that Google sued an individual and company that posted over 350 fake reviews (Fowler 2023). I think it is necessary to gain some control and ban fake reviews, especially since they are so influential to businesses. Attached below are some reviews from my pizzeria over the years (I think they are quite funny).


### April 1 Tue - Artificial Intelligence

Am I going to be jobless when I am older? No, it is unlikely, however my dream job could be drastically different because of the technological advancements of AI. I want to become an entertainment lawyer but recently I sat in on a panel with current lawyers and one of the topics discussed was the incorporation of artificial intelligence in the law profession. One of the lawyers said that a new interview question she asked was "how well can you use AI in work and in life?" In the article written by Rebecca Heilwel, she talks about how jobs are changing and being influenced by AI. Heilwel says that we should not be afraid of losing our jobs but be aware that they will change. The panelist said the same thing. Now case briefs can be written in 10 minutes instead of hours. Artificial intelligence can make everyone's job easier, for better or for worse. Especially in the legal field, this could have extreme consequences.

James Vincent writes about how AI could lead to "potential legal challenges" (Vincent 2022). If lawyers begin using AI and use wrong facts, precedents or interrupt the law incorrectly, there could be serious repercussions. It is scary to think artificial intelligence could be used in law and in government policies. Artificial intelligence works with previous experiences so then all of the works written in the law profession will begin to sound more and more alike with only a few differences. I believe this could be really bad for society, especially in terms of our lawyers becoming lazy and dependent on AI. Reverting back to the interview question of how to use AI, I think it is important to know how to use it but unethical to use it to do your job.

### April 11 Fri - Digital Language and Generations

My mom and I once got into a huge fight because I thought she was passive-aggressive over text. We were talking about if I could spend the night with my friends and she responded with "k". I thought that meant that she was against it but when I showed up back at my house that night she was surprised. When I told her about it she was confused why, in her mind, she just shortened the word "ok" but for me, the underlying social message was passive-aggressive. McCulloch talks a lot about how different generations have different meanings of internet language. There are a lot of subtle meanings in internet slang. One of the examples McCulloch talks about is the term "LOL". There are double meanings. In my experience with the word "LOL," I use it in the context of irony or softening as McCulloch describes. When I need my sarcasm to come through in a text message, the easiest way to do so is to add an "LOL" at the end. For people outside of this internet bubble, it can be confusing.

Similar to McCulloch's LOL, there is my difference between "ok", "okay", "kk", and "k". In my opinion, the only one that is not that passive or aggressive or passive-aggressive is "kk". That one is light and fun. The other ones, depending on context, can come across as not always so happy. However, I find "k" to be incredibly aggressive. The sender purposely chose to not include the other "k". Everyone, and different generations, have different understandings and knowledge of what internet language means. It is important to remember who you are texting and what language can be used when. When I text my grandma, I will use LOL seriously, so she thinks it is funny. Or when my dad texts me "ok." I know he does not mean it in a passive-aggressive way.

### April 15 Tue - Pushback

Having a phone is inevitable today. No matter how hard a person tries, it is impossible to function without one. A co-worker of mine from high school was a pizza delivery driver at the age of seventy-four (yes, this is a true story). When iPhones began to become popular with Google Maps and having caller ID, our boss told him he needed a phone. This was back in 2010. He only used a flip phone for work purposes and felt he had no reason to invest in an iPhone. However, my boss threatened his job because of convenience and safety and my co-worker got an iPhone. I was told this story when I started working there in 2021, eleven years later. He tried so hard to not get an iPhone, but it was forced on him because of societal norms and the ease of having one. This story reminds me of the Luddite club follow-up, and how they all have phones now. They tried to push back, but in the end, it became a necessity to function in everyday life. One of the members, Ms. Shub quotes "I guess I still don’t like needing the crutch of a smartphone, though I couldn’t figure out how to go on without one" (Vadukul 2023). Even though the Luddite teens may not like it, similar to my co-worker, it is a need to function.

Stacy Morrison and Ricardo Gomez studied why people push back. Unlike the Luddite teens, I don't think my co-worker was purposefully pushing back against technology, he was just older and didn't want to learn new things. However, what I found most interesting in their research is that a primary motivation is to regain control. Regain control of what, their life? I think it is referencing the addiction that everyone has to their phone.