## Reading Responses Set 2

### Reading Response 1 (out of 5) - Nov 4: Online Dating
Dating sites promise connection but often contribute to isolation. Technologies designed to bring people together have also reduced genuine emotion and real-life encounters. Across the four readings, each author highlights a different reason for this shift. The OkCupid article shows how users curate idealized versions of themselves and blur the truth to appear more attractive. The Atlantic argues that while online dating expands choice and diversity, it also privatizes intimacy and leaves individuals solely responsible for finding connection. The Guardian describes how this system leads to burnout, as users grow tired of superficial matches and endless self-promotion. The Hill adds a broader social perspective, noting the rise of solo living in the United States and the growing trend toward individualism. Together these readings reveal the contradiction of digital intimacy.

This idea also connects to a project I did for a Public Relations class, where we had to interview people on the streets of Boston. I chose to ask about dating apps, and most of the women I spoke with said people now feel less approachable in real life. They felt that meeting someone organically has become rare, yet many also knew friends who had found genuine, lasting relationships online. Their responses reflected the same duality seen in the readings. Dating apps have created both new opportunities for connection and new barriers to authenticity.

Honesty on dating apps is performed rather than natural because algorithms reward strategic self-presentation. The data from OkCupid shows that exaggerating height, income, or using old photos is common. The structure of dating apps makes visibility dependent on attractiveness and engagement, pushing users to market themselves like products. As a result, truth becomes a performance rather than a reflection of one's self. The Guardian really captures this when it describes users feeling “soul destroyed” by constant self-curation. Across the readings, honesty is shown to be shaped by algorithmic visibility and social competition. If connection now depends on optimization, can digital intimacy ever be authentic, or are we simply just learning new ways to perform honesty?

### Reading Response 2 (out of 5) Nov 7: Online Advertising
The internet feels free, but what we really pay with is our attention. We are constantly looking at advertisements that track and target us wherever we go online. Lou Montulli's invention of cookies was originally meant to help the web “remember, but it has turned into the foundation of a massive advertising industry worth billions or maybe even trillions of dollars. Both the reading by Stokes and the Vox video show two sides of the same story, one explains how online advertising works, while the other reveals its social and ethical consequences.

Stokes traces the development of online advertising from simple banner ads to advanced tracking systems and ad servers that follow users across websites. He explains models like CPM, CPC, and CPA, and describes how tracking and targeting are seen as major strengths of digital marketing. The vox video visualizes this process by showing how cookies evolved from simple memory tools to instruments of surveillance and behavioral profiling. Together they both show that data has become the main currency of attention and that our online behavior is constantly being turned into profit.

Stokes presents tracking as a marketing advantage, while Vox exposes it as a quiet form of surveillance where users are traded between companies. I find it unsettling when I look at a product online on my computer and later see and ad for that exact same thing on my phone or on Instagram. Sometimes it even feels like I only talked about something, and it suddenly appears on my feed. This kind of third-party data sharing makes it hard to tell where convenience ends and where exploitation begins.

This constant tracking reminds me of George Orwell's 1984, where surveillance was used to control people's thoughts and actions. While our situation is different, the feeling of being watched is similar. Instead of Big Brother, it is algorithms and advertisers collecting information about what we do, buy, and even think.
In the end, it seems as though we are not really browsing for free. By constantly watching advertisements, we are the ones being watched. The cookies remember us better than we remember ourselves.

Here is the link to the GoogleDoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XN5c-FC52KiEKFcEO1mFdHkTFOyS6evtxj2ou-iJA6w/edit?usp=sharing

### Reading Response 3 (out of 5) Nov 21: Algorithmic Bias
Algorithms are often presented as neutral tools, yet these readings reveal that they are one of the most powerful architects. Far from being objective, algorithmic systems actively shape what we see, who is visible, and which narratives become normalized. Taken together, the BuzzFeed article on Google Radicalized search results, the National Review's critique of “woke” ChatGPT, and Cathy O'Neil's concept of Weapons of Math Destruction expose how technology reproduces existing power structures under the illusion of mathematical neutrality.

The BuzzFeed article highlights how image searches such as “three white teenagers” and “three black teenagers” generate entirely different representations, with white teens shown as happy and innocent, while black teens are more often depicted in mugshots or criminalized contexts. This demonstrates that algorithms reproduce racial stereotypes, not because the machine “hates”, but because data and design are embedded in a racist social history. Similarly, the national review article argues that ChatGPT is not ideologically neutral, suggesting that AI systems can act as gatekeepers of acceptable knowledge by privileging certain political positions over others. Oneil pushes this critique further by introducing weapons of math destruction: Opaque, scalable, and harmful models such as criminal risk assessment tools and university ranking systems that systematically disadvantage marginalized groups while appearing objective and scientific.

What all the three texts have is common is that they challenge the myth of neutrality. If algorithms determine who is seen as dangerous, intelligent, worthy, or credible, then they are not merely technical systems, but more so political and ethical ones. The Google search example made me immediately think of O'Neil's risk scoring systems: in both cases, people are reduced to data points within a structure they cannot see or question, yet which deeply shapes their real lives. We discussed in class that although ChatGPT can answer factual questions (and sometimes even fails at those), it avoids taking clear positions on more open or ethical issues. However, this avoidance does not make it more neutral, its bias is simply more discreet and harder to detect.

This leads to an unsettling question: If algorithms are producing and amplifying societies worst biases, who should be held responsible? The data? The designers? The corporation? Or the culture that feeds them? And perhaps more importantly, should private companies really be allowed to control the mechanisms that determine who is visible in the digital world?

Here is the link to the Googel Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11yeUuFTI92DLSxgtZVPQs6AofhuqJSSSePoixTjSzk4/edit?usp=sharing

### Reading Response 4 (out of 5) Dec 2: Online Communication
A single tiny “lol” can either soften a message or completely confuse the person who reads it. Both the NPR article and McCulloch's chapter show how online writing has become more expressive as people try to make text feel more like speech. The NPR piece explains that features like emoji, stretched punctuation and the non-literal “lol” help people show emotion and tone so a message does not sound flat or cold. In Internet People McCulloch adds another layer by showing how different generations entered the internet under different conditions. Old Internet People learned to communicate in text-heavy forums. Full Internet People grew up with instant messaging. Semi Internet People entered through email and Facebook. Pre Internet People arrived late and often through family members. Each group learned different habits and norms, which means online language reflects the moment they first began to socialize digitally. Both texts make the point that online writing keeps changing because it responds to social needs and because people copy the habits of the communities they belong to.

These generational differences create real gaps in how tone is understood. McCulloch's waves help explain why the same symbol can mean completely different things depending on who uses it. Older users often read “LOL” as laughing out loud. Young users read “lol” in lowercase as something softer or even ironic. I saw this difference very clearly when I got a text from my grandma after I had just arrived in Boston. She sent a sweet message about how proud she was of me and then ended it with “LOL”. I couldn't understand why she would be sarcastic at that moment. Later she told me her neighbor said it meant “lots of love”. In this case it was harmless, however, I can imagine the confusion being much sharper in situations where tone really matters.
The NPR article helps explain why. It argues that people use digital tools to create warmth and make writing feel conversational. For some, emoji and playful lowercase spelling feel natural and friendly. For others, these tools feel unnecessary, so they stick to more formal punctuation, which can make them sound harsher than they intend. What all of this shows is that tone online is not only about what is written. It also depends on who is reading and what norms shaped their understanding of digital language.

This raises a final question about the future of online language. The generations that were considered older when McCulloch wrote may never fully adjust to the speed and style of digital communication, but what happens when Gen Z grows old after spending their whole lives online? Will they be the first to keep up with the shifts in digital language as they age, or will the internet keep evolving so quickly that every generation eventually falls behind? When we are old, will we still text each other “omg lol”, or will our own writing start to sound formal and outdated to the people who come after us?

Here is the link to the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11hUJdgzReVAqYmHhbk2_GSSD4cAKOaQQJLw3HuUGQ_w/edit?usp=sharing

### Reading Response 5 (out of 5) Dec 5: Pushback
It's ironic that the more we live our lives online, the more obsessed we become with trying to escape them. Both Morrison and Gomez article and the New York Times piece on the Luddite Club circle the same question, why does offline life feel more authentic than the digital worlds we spend so much time in?

Morrison and Gomez argue that this longing for “IRL” is partly a romanticization of offline life. People talk about offline life as if it's purer and more genuine, even though online and offline are deeply intertwined. They also emphasize that the ability to disconnect is a form of privilege, not everyone can just walk away from digital spaces when so much of social and economic life happens there. Vadukul's New York Times article almost reads like a case study proving their point. The teens in the Luddite Club reject smartphones and social media, choosing flip phones and park meet-ups instead. But once they enter college, they run into several practical problems. QR codes for dining halls, Uber apps to get a safe ride home, and even dating. Their commitment to being “offline” gives them a reality check that modern life runs on digital tools.

This raises a question, if rejecting technology becomes its own identity, an “offline aesthetic”, is it actually a form of resistance, or just another performance shaped by the same digital culture it critiques? I definitely understand the urge to cut down on how much time and energy we spend online, but I also think that being fully offline today is basically impossible. For example, in Sweden we rely on something called BankID for almost everything, logging into your bank, picking up a package, or proving your age. Without it, so many everyday tasks just wouldn't work. That makes me think about how dependent we are on these systems. If all our digital infrastructure suddenly failed, would daily life fall apart? Or would we just adapt and fins a new understanding of “real life” in a world where being online isn't really optional anymore?

Here is the link to the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnGnk-1lG9Vt-pfRJpJYVdgLdiTasH5VDp_ABEvXLCY/edit?usp=sharing