# Reading Responses (Set 1)

## Response 1

What does a quick trip to the local shop and viewing a webpage have in common; more than you might think. According to the How the Web Works page, the basic steps a computer undergoes when one searches and views a website can be explained with the metaphor of taking a trip to the store. For this comparison to work, one must imagine the web as a road. On one end of this imaginary road is your house and on the other end is the store. This describes the client-server relationship or the relationship between your device and the website you are trying to reach. One of the more interesting aspects of this connection is the HTTP or Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Within the metaphor, the HTTP is compared to the language used to order the goods from the store. This is valuable to understand. According to web developer Hartley Brody, HTTP is not just used to define the language being used when the client is communicating with the server, it can also be used to make a website and its data more secure. How does it do this? Part of the encryption within HTTP is used to help the client and server communicate with their own “shared secret key,” a language only they understand, ensuring no outsider will be able to disrupt it. After the two parties have agreed upon their secret key, another type of encryption is used to make communication easier. Both of these work together to ensure that the data on the website cannot be found or messed with.

These articles showed me that there is so much I don’t know about the web, something I use daily. They also highlighted that understanding how the web works is important, even if that means creating simple metaphors to help one understand. Even Brody, a web developer, admitted to not fully understanding HTTP, a key component to ensuring the security of our data. If there is anything I would like to learn more about, it is the privacy of our data on the internet and what steps we can take to ensure our information remains safe.

## Response 2

Would you believe that you are most likely learning wrong? Learning is something we do every single day, yet most of us have not found the most effective way to do it. In the first chapter of the book, *Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning* by Peter Brown, Henry Roediger, and Mark McDaniel, the authors debunk the myth that people are born either capable or incapable of amassing a wealth of knowledge. The authors explore the ways that the brain learns best, and how the learner is in control of their “intellectual abilities.” As the master of your own learning fate, it is beneficial to know what not to do. The authors strongly advise against easy, simple ways of learning, such as repetition until the material is “burned into memory.” This is because, after tested research, the strategy of rereading material and repetition in a short period of time “yields negligible benefits” for actually absorbing information. Yet this is a very common tool for studying often because the ability to repeat the information gives learners the “illusion of mastery,” leaving them with gaps in knowledge and the inability to think critically. What the authors do recommend is “self-testing” as a way to keep new information fresh, spacing out practice sessions instead of short bursts of repetition, adding new, but related, material into your learning, and looking for the answers to problems before receiving the solution in order to practice critical thinking. They emphasize using these “effortful retrieval” tools instead of simple repetition and recall without much further thought into the material.

As a college student who has been told many times to use the study strategy of repetition, this chapter came as a surprise to me. However, learning this was actually more frustrating than enlightening. I was never one who could organize information in their heads easily, so I often made lists, kept neat planners, and used repetition often. For example, in math, I would memorize formulas before venturing into solving a problem. Widening the lens of my material into bigger more complex ideas only confused me and breaking up the material into easy learning was how I got through high school with relatively good grades. I would ask the authors: is my preferred learning style a product of bad advice I was taught at a young age that I cannot reverse, and what do they recommend for people who have tried their methods and failed?

## Response 3

Before technologies like bitcoin came into play, there was a problem. The physical exchange of goods could not be replicated online. In his article, [Explain Bitcoin Like I’m Five](https://medium.com/free-code-camp/explain-bitcoin-like-im-five-73b4257ac833), Nick Custodio explains this using the example of a simple physical exchange of an apple from one person to another. But when trying to do the same simple act digitally, it is hard to know whether or not that “digital apple” was copied, whether it was shared beforehand, or whether it was downloaded by millions of people before it was exchanged. The solution to this problem was Bitcoin, a way to have digital exchanges in a secure way, where you know that once you are given the digital apple, it is yours and only yours. Bitcoin works because the entire system of transactions is recorded by everybody’s computers. That way you can't cheat because “it wouldn’t sync up with everybody in the system.”

Tor, on the other hand, is a system that is used when you want “ to stay private and uncensored when browsing the Internet,” according to the article [How it Works: Part one](https://jordan-wright.com/blog/2015/02/28/how-tor-works-part-one/). Tor connects your computer to its destination going “through a series of intermediate computers, or relays.” There are three main relays, the entry, middle, and exit relay. Tor is often compared to an onion because it has multiple layers of encryption working with each of these relays to make sure “client traffic isn’t compromised and relays can’t be held liable for data they can’t see.”

The two technologies, bitcoin and Tor, both create a good atmosphere for the darknet to thrive. The ability to exchange goods or money in a secure way online, along with the ability to completely “mask your location and activity” is a perfect scenario for the Darknet. In the article, [The Darknet: Is the Government Destroying ‘the Wild West of the Internet?](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-darknet-is-the-government-destroying-the-wild-west-of-the-internet-198271/) by David Kushner, he simply describes the darknet as being “composed of people and sites that want to remain anonymous.” This does not always mean crime will occur, however, and only 3% of Tor usage is used on the Darknet, even less of that being for criminal purposes. But those do stand out and are not insignificant. Additionally, a lot of crime on the darknet uses bitcoin to undergo these illegal exchanges. In a study done by Carnegie Mellon, “criminals earn an estimated $100 million a year by selling drugs and other contraband on hidden websites using the virtual currency bitcoin.” The real problem lies in the inability to find a solution. As Kushner puts it, “the same tools that keep government agents and dissidents anonymous keep criminals virtually invisible too,” meaning that these tools such as Tor and Bitcoin are a double-edged sword, that help the government while also helping criminals. Making it extremely difficult to get rid of them altogether.

I think it would be unwise to write off tools such as Tor and Bitcoin simply because some people can use them for committing crimes. One can make that argument for almost anything. I do, however, think this is a problem and the government needs to do some catching up and find a solution that makes these types of crimes harder to commit, although the article is showing some progress with this. My question would be, is there a way to crack down even harder on these types of crimes without compromising the beneficial aspects of Tor and Bitcoin?

## Response 4

It might seem surprising to some that on the internet, especially on sites like Wikipedia that are made to be open, free sources of unbiased information, carry the same sexist biases that we see on a regular basis in society. However, in some ways, the culture of sexism on the internet, and in technology companies, is almost worse. In fact, “only 20 percent of its technical employees are women. Microsoft reports approximately 18 percent, Apple reports 23 percent, and Facebook 18 percent,” according to the article [Science Doesn’t Explain Tech’s Diversity problem- History Does](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality), written by Sarah Jeong and Rachel Becker. The article argues that claims that women are somehow innately inferior to men in the technology sector are baseless and do not explain the inequality shown. But if it is most certainly not biological differences that explain why the internet, even websites that pride themselves off of being free and open, is so sexist, what is it?

It is first beneficial to explain that this kind of sexist inequality does not just occur in the workplace but also in participation and contribution on certain websites, regardless of the technical abilities needed for participation and contribution. Joseph Reagle, in his [Free as in Sexist](https://reagle.org/joseph/2012/fas/free-as-in-sexist.html) article, explores some of the reasons why this inequality is occurring. Reagle states his overarching argument is that “the gender gap is, in part, a consequence of the culture, dynamics, and values of these communities.” But what does this mean? One specific subject Reagle tackles is the idea that these communities can often be unappealing to individuals who do not fit in with the stereotype of a geek. A word Reagle describes as, “historically... understood as being both white and masculine,” along with other traits such as not being “able to talk about anything beyond computers,” and being a “brogrammer, or what happens “When computer nerds become frat boys.” It is not crazy to assert that these traits are not only unappealing to women, but they can also feel threatening and unsafe. Another reason for the disparity that Reagle discusses is the nature in which men and women go about communicating on these sites. Men tend to “use more aggressive tactics” in online discourse while women, “are more likely to react adversely to aggression and fall silent or drop out.” This is made even worse when women become victims of harassment and “male intimidation.” Whether this harassment is coming from men who feel “ threatened by assertive women, and who respond by becoming contemptuous” or by “out and out misogynist” it almost doesn’t matter. Regardless of who is doing it, it is driving women away and making it an uncomfortable place. Something I’m sure is not exclusive to online discourse and probably replicates itself into workplaces in the tech industry.

Reagle's article starts with a brief discussion about the Social Network and how critics of the movie say it portrays the female characters as “one dimensional.” However, I think this explains the issue at large, they are portrayed that way because that is how they were treated. Facebook had its roots in sexism as a way to rank the female students at Harvard, and the movie portrays these “geek” types consistent with the definition in Reagle's article. If that behavior is mimicked on most forms of online discourse, as the article suggests, it is no wonder why women turn away from these kinds of online activities. Why would we actively put ourselves into situations where we feel unwelcomed and unsafe, especially when the outside world also brings about these problems daily.

## Response 5

There have always been marketing tools intended to get the consumer to either buy or participate in something, many of those tactics being shady and manipulative. However, as the market turned online, and social media became a goldmine for online advertisements, new and more dishonest ways to manipulate the truth have come into play. It is well known that one of the best ways to get free promotion is to pop up on people’s algorithms, in the case of Instagram this is done by getting tons of likes on a post in a short amount of time. With this knowledge, some influencers have been buying into [“Instagram Pods”](https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/instagram-pods) which are essentially large groups where a post in that group is then interacted with by the pod and therefore gets a boost in popularity and can show up more on people’s pages. However, these pods are just one example of the manipulation going on online. In fact, online reviews and comments are frequently being manipulated, as having these reflect positively on the product or service is vital to gain consumers.

In his article, [Manipulated: “Which Ice Cube Is the Best?"](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/1cubrkat/release/2) Joseph Reagle discusses “the marketplace problem of information asymmetry.” According to Reagle, the phenomenon of information asymmetry is essentially the problem that buyers do not trust what they are buying, or in his words, “The classic example is a potential buyer’s fear that a car might be a “lemon.” These fears can be lessened when user reviews, ratings, and comments are available, however, if those are manipulated it is easy to see how that could negatively affect the buying experience and draw people into making bad buying decisions. But how is this manipulation occurring? When looking at reviews there are generally two types, numerical and text. With numerical reviews or rankings, producers can easily pick a choose which numbers look the best for them and which will increase the chances of a consumer buying the product. With text reviews, some producers will duplicate positive reviews, and some reviewers might post the same review multiple times sometimes on different accounts. This phenomenon of using different accounts is a common one and can be used to not only make fake reviews but to push a certain narrative or to simply make it seem like a product has more engagement than it does. With all these types of scams, one might think that a good amount of online reviews are fake. According to Reagle, “Researchers estimate that between 10 to 30 percent of online reviews are fake.” Additionally, there are usually three types of manipulators, the “ fakers (those who deceptively praise their own works or pillory others’),” the “makers (those who will do so for a fee), and the takers (those who avail themselves of such services).” However, as he mentions later, these groups do intersect as the takers can pay for the services of those who are willing to scam for a fee. With a constant battle between trying to stop these scammers, with tools such as CAPTCHA, and the scammer figuring out ways to get through, one might ask: how do consumers know what to trust?

Well, the answer is not so straightforward, it might simply be better to be skeptical of most things you see and try to decipher which reviews seem more trustworthy. While there has been progress made with sites becoming more aware of scammers and cracking down on them, in my opinion, it is hard to trust anyone who has a stake in the game, including the sites that want you there. Is there really any way to completely trust this process? In my opinion no, so the user must do the work themselves and hope for the best outcome.