# Reading Responses (Set 1)

#### 09/20/2022
#### This is a reponse to ["How the Web Works"](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/Getting_started_with_the_web/How_the_Web_works) and ["How HTTPS Secures Connections"](https://blog.hartleybrody.com/https-certificates/)

We exchange information with our environment everyday through our technology without even knowing. Even considering our society today, we consistently grow and adapt with technology, without really questioning the technicalities behind it. The author's description of the web and the interaction between the client and the server of "How the Web Works" made me realize that there were more elements that allow people to access the internet, such as TCP, DNS, or component files, none of which I have heard of before. It made me understand, as a modern person, the expectation of the internet to work the way that I know is almost automatic, but in actuality, there is an individual process of requesting information and that information being placed correctly so that I am able to access it. The most interesting take away from this article is that our technology also communicates with one other to serve their functions, in ways that can be comparable to human communication.

In terms of "How HTTPS Secures Connections," I am curious to know more about the types of information are made available to other networks, other than those described. What kinds of security concerns arise from this? How has people used this information other than through advertising in social media? How are media companies able collect information over such as wide range, that involves millions of different local networks?

#### 10/04/2022

Most people want to have an infinite number of close relationships and are failing. Through social media websites, our society tells us we should have numerous friends and connections. The wide reach of the web that emphasizes numbers constantly puts individuals in competition with one another. In ["Gossip,"](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/dtys4tyk/release/2#gossip) Reagle describes Dunbar's theory that the idea of *infinite friends* does not exist. Dunbar explains that the number 150 is the "cognitive limit of how many relationships humans can maintain given their complexity." This illustrates that from our hundreds of instagram followers who we consider as *hundreds of friends*, only 10-20% make up our true community of friends. In fact, the people that we think are our friends may not consider us as close connections, making Dunbar's limitation of 150 relationships even smaller. Even within the pool of 150 relationships that we consider to be close, levels of closeness between people vary. Individuals will make different choices in situations depending on emotional closeness. In ["Supercooperators,"](http://www.martinnowak.com/books/supercooperators), Nowak discusses *Prisoner's Dilemma*, which outlines the internal battle between social cooperation with others and competitive human instinct of natural selection. If two people are in a position of competition where their survival is at stake, emotional proximity between two people is the determiner of whether parties will choose cooperation. This is due to the fact that if individuals are close, they will attribute the other's surivival as part of their own survival. This idea is shown with inclusive fitness, or altruism with animals of the same species. In the below model, the survival of one ant increases the survival of the other ant. The survival of the other ant also allows for the presence of subsequent ants in the same species.


This indicates that cooperation in the context of survival is possible, but may depend on the level of connection between individuals. For humans, the emotional proximity is more important for cooperation than biological proximity. This is because our thoughts and priorities within society are more complex than survival alone.

Moreover, the number of stakeholders involved with the decision can skew the decision of cooperation. If there were more accomplices given the same choices, they would be less likely to cooperate with one another than if there were to be two people. This is because the responsibility of the others' salvation will be distributed among more people. Individuals will feel less inclined to make decisions at their own expense because there are more external factors that will affect the other person's survival. Additionally, smaller groups have increased depth than larger groups. The distribution of responsibility among groups of people is similar to our discussions in class about *crap detection* in the internet. People no longer feel accountable for the validity of information that they post because of the wide information and connections throughout the web. As a result, the Web has become an oversaturated space, where we must sort through piles of junk information to access necessary information. Reagle's statement that "The Web is a Big Place," is an indication of how wide social connection diffuses social responsibilities.

#### 10/07/2022

I know what it’s like to live in a bubble. For most of my life, I have always been the person to have connections with people who were directly in my line of vision. Rather than seeking relationships in new environments, I stayed inside my box with comfortable people and things. My engagement through online interactions is similar in nature, where I interact with the people I know well. Rheingold’s ["Social Has a Shape"](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6774262) disagrees with this idea of living in the bubble. While the illusion is a closed system, my bubble coexists with other bubbles. In fact, my bubble and others influence one another. Bubbles are dynamic, constantly growing and changing as we develop relationships.
Rheingold's description of, “Do you know someone in Italy? You’ve now reduced the path length between you and anyone else in Italy,” is closely related to the website LinkedIn. The feature of Linkedin that shows the level of connection (2nd degree, 3rd degree) is a practical example of how our connections can extend large distances. The varying levels of connection show the social distance from one person to the other and users can message one another based on this measure. This feature is the heart of LinkedIn because it uses loose social connections to connect people who otherwise would not have met. It gives the illusion of closeness when a person initially thought to be a stranger has mutual connections. People on LinkedIn are looking for people outside of their bubble for job opportunities, or increased *path length*.


Furthermore, social links can also emotionally influence one another. Rheingold emphasizes the direct correlation between the happiness of networks and the happiness of the individual within the network. This may be true if the networks are close. Individuals feel empathy for events in another person’s life, meaning that they may even feel similar emotions over the same event. This correlation cannot be accurately measured because of the complexity of relationships. It was necessary to measure the number of people needed to show an emotion to have a notable change within the individual. Additionally, there are instances when we do not share the emotions of our connections. Instead, we may feel the opposite. Through LinkedIn, a person may hear about the successes of friends and acquaintances and feel happiness through them. However, this practical, lighthearted social media site is also a toxic space for others. Seeing others within the same social circles become high-achieving individuals may cause an individual to feel unaccomplished. Our society’s interaction with Instagram is similar. Research has shown that constantly being exposed to more attractive others with more interesting lives causes lower self-esteem for teenagers. As people who constantly interact with digital media, we regulate this influence of path lengths by limiting exposure to social media. While increased path lengths may be beneficial, its application through the Web proves that it may also bring negative consequences.

#### 10/11/2022

My parents were right about the internet. While it is an interesting and engaging space, much of the internet today has become saturated by a negative soup of conversations and opinions. Within this junk information, there are haters and bully battles between different groups of people: from fandoms, to authors, to celebrities. In "Reading the Comments," Reagle discusses a scenario in which an author and a reader argue about their differing interpretations on the internet. The role of the internet in this story is that it creates a place for "bad behavior." In the absence of the internet, Willow would have voiced her opinions about Bear's novel to people around her. While they may listen and agree, Willow's negative opinions can be kept private between her and her acquaintances. However, in the presence of the internet Willow's opinions become accessible to everyone, including Bear. In fact, Bear has the opportunity to respond back to Willow to disagree with her. More importantly, Bear can respond to Willow *more than once*, making this an endless back and forth. Ultimately, the internet has increased transparency with everything, even negativity. Things that would have normally been kept quiet now have a medium to be amplified. Cancel culture, a movement that removes a person from their celebrity status due to offensive behavior, operates in a similar manner. Today, regular people can reach celebrities over social media, which was impossible before. Celebrities and other stakeholders such as advertisers know what everyone thinks about them, in real time. Cancel culture has shown that this reach and collectivism in the internet can potentially ruin someone's career. This is detrimental for users because morality is judged by the majority.


And like my mom, who had regulated my phone usage to limit my exposure to similar types of negativity, Facebook also does this to their users to limit circulation of negative content. The [article](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053924352/facebook-instagram-bullying-harassment-numbers) by Shannon Bond explains social media companies as regulators of information, but not all offensive content is detected through their automated system. While this is necessary to prevent social media spaces from becoming a *free for all*, the regulation of negative content removes responsibility from users. People who post hate or engage in battles may not feel accountable for engaging in negativity if they know that posts with moral implications will be removed.

#### 10/14/2022

Which best describes the interaction between the user and the server when servers set cookies?

a. Two friends exchange phone numbers to stay in touch with one another
b. A nurse asks a patient to remember their blood pressure then recall it to them at a later time
c. A teacher asks a student to relay information from another student to her
d. A receptionist gives information to a visitor, then gives the same information to the next visitor

Ans: A nurse asks a patient to remember their blood pressure then recall it to them at a later time

Which is not a potential solution to social dilemmas on cooperation?
a. Altruistic punishment
b. Privatization
c. Government intervention
d. Gossip and reputation

Ans: Gossip and reputation

Short Answer:
What are the three differences between Tragedy of Commons and Public Goods?

Ans: Tragedy of Common is rivalrous and causes overconsumption, but Public goods cause the presence of underproduction

What are three factors to look for in credible sources and what do they mean?

Ans:
(One of these)
Authority: The identity of author that wrote the source
Purpose: The purpose of a credible article should be clear
Publication and format: The publication and format of the source should whether it is factual information
Relevance/ Date of publication: Whether the article is outdated

#### 10/25/2022
How does digital communication affect our ability to be mindful? How does it affect self-esteem; is it making us narcissistic?

We are what we eat. In our modern world, our consumption of technology constant throughout the day and is a large portion of what we eat. Digital communication hinders our ability to be mindful because of the distance perceived between users on the internet. With platforms such as Youtube and Reddit, users interact with others who they do not know, which causes deindividuation. This makes it easier to post comments without thinking about the receiver. In ["Aw Shit, I Have to Update My Twitter](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/niu4m6vu/release/2)," Jamey's exposure to large volumes of supporters and haters in his comments shows that digital communication causes an overflow of information. Moreover, the main cause of his tragedy is not from haters alone, but his constant exposure to the world. Digital communication has made us more self-conscious individuals, rather than narcissistic. From this wider range of connections, we unconsciously overanalyze our presence to others because of the awareness that more people are watching. His experience with hate outside of the internet proves that internet interaction and in-person interaction are combined experiences. While Jamey may be consuming love and support from followers online, his reality was also hatred in school. While our ability to affect content on the internet is important in our digital communication, the effect of the internet on users is often more significant and overlooked. The integration of the internet to our daily lives is a novel development, making it difficult to predict its long-term effects on our psyche, especially on children. Ultimately, Jamey's death underscores the impact of we are what we eat. As users of the internet, not only do we have the reponsibility for content we make available to the internet, but to also filter the information that we receive. The sentiment to "not read the comments" has shown to be good advice, as we simply do not need to know everyone's opinion at one time.