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

## Reading Response #1: "Online Advertising"

Online advertisers are tracking your activity across all websites, whether you know it or not. Through the use of 3rd party cookies, advertisers can see what websites you frequent and show you ads for their products across those websites (Abrams, 2020). Online advertisers have two main objectives, building their company’s brand and getting a direct response and sales (Stokes, 2014). Building “brand awareness” (Stokes, 2014) means advertisers are trying to make people more aware of their brand or product, therefore creating a level of trust between consumers and companies. In other words, the better known a brand is, the more business it will get. Additionally, brands want to drive a direct response and generate sales through their online adverts–a medium that is unlike any other form of advertising as it allows consumers to go from the advert to the seller in one click (Stokes, 2014). There are 6 main ways that advertisers can show their products on the Internet: banner adverts, interstitial banners, pop-ups and pop-unders, floating adverts, wallpaper adverts, and map adverts (Stokes, 2014). Each is a unique way to display a company’s product and the utilization of one ad form or the other depends on what product they are selling. For example, a restaurant may use a map advert as opposed to a banner advert because a map advert targets people who are already looking for places in a certain area. Finally, advertisers target ideal consumers by utilizing 5 parameters: user profile, behavior, frequency and sequencing, exclusivity, and context of content (Stokes, 2014).

------------------------------------------------------------
I found it quite interesting that ad companies are actually quite aware of the fact that many people often consciously or subconsciously ignore ads online–popups are particularly known for causing “audience annoyance” (Stokes, 2014). To me, it certainly makes advertisers seem more aware of their audiences, as previously I had believed that advertising companies were usually out of touch with potential markets. I mean, what audience would be receptive to these inconvenient ads when they are just trying to access a webpage? That being said, it makes me wonder how many times advertisements on web pages actually work and generate sales. Personally, I ignore any ads on a webpage even if it might be something I’m interested in. I’ve always had this idea that it most likely is a “scam” or an unreliable company that advertises on web pages since the ads are typically low quality or of a brand I’ve never heard of. It seems that this correlates with the idea of “brand awareness” (Stokes, 2014) that companies try to utilize advertising on multiple websites so that potential audiences see them as more reliable and cohesive as a company. Perhaps the reason I think they are often scams is because advertisers are in the process of building a brand and are yet to get any credibility. Nonetheless, I still will ignore ads that pop-up, even if they do seem reliable.

## Reading Response #2: "Manipulated: "Which Ice Cube is the Best?""

Looking over reviews to see if one product is better than another seems like a no-brainer for most people, but what happens when 10-30% of those reviews are fake? As Reagle outlines in his chapter on online review manipulation, a large portion of online reviews are untrustworthy or even fake due to the prevalence of what he defines as sock puppets, fakers, makers, and takers. Beginning with why online reviews have become so prevalent, the term “information asymmetry” is used to describe the disparity between what a seller knows about their product and what a potential buyer knows (Reagle, 2019). This has created a space where individuals seek the opinions of others to verify if a product is good or not. However, those who are selling or promoting something are now encouraged to fake reviews of their products in order to drive sales and customer participation. The term “sock puppet” or “fakers” describes when a seller uses multiple fake accounts in order to write anonymous reviews for their products (Reagle, 2019). This in turn creates a false positive image of their products which can boost sales and customer engagement. “Makers” are people that are employed to write reviews for a fee and “takers” are those that enlist such services (Reagle, 2019). Both of these terms have arisen from those who use sock puppets being found out and ostracized for their actions. In the end, each term is a function of generating more profit in a never-ending cycle of reviewing and misleading.

------------------------------------------------------------
What was most surprising to me about this chapter was how prevalent fake reviews actually are. I just believed the people reviewing products were real because I did not see a reason for people to lie or manipulate about what food is the best or what vacuum cleaner to buy. It wasn’t until this chapter that I realized just how much reviews can drive sales and that the sheer number of reviews can cause businesses to get more profit. It makes sense now that businesses would attempt to alter or fake reviews so that they can do more business. I found it particularly meta when others were actually reviewing reviewers. It seems like it all has become one convoluted way of generating profit or status online. I found the article by Forsey particularly relevant to the chapter due to the assertions about audience engagement and how people utilize a group to get more attention. Many businesses appear to be doing something similar, so this idea seems to have footholds in many seemingly unrelated fixtures online. “Instagram Pods” (Forsey, 2019) are just another form of buying online reviews, but instead of monetary gain, it is gaining through mutual Instagram engagement. It’s interesting to see how many things online are connected, whether we realize it or not.

## Reading Response #3: "Weapons of Math Destruction"

Algorithms based on reliable data have always been regarded as fool-proof ways of understanding complex issues, but what happens when even data is corrupt? Cathy O’Neil (2016) outlines the idea of “Weapons of Math Destruction” (WMD’s) or models utilized by institutions that “contributes to a toxic cycle and helps sustain it.” (O’Neil, 2016). Recidivism Models and LSI-R surveys are employed by the criminal justice system to gather an unbiased quantification for how likely convicted criminals are to commit crimes once they are released from prison. While these models seem to be a better alternative than biased prosecutors and judges, they are inherently damaging to individuals due to their inability to put events into context. By simply focusing on the backgrounds of criminals, they allow privileged majorities to appear safer while those who are minorities that live in impoverished areas are punished for things out of their control. O’Neil (2016) outlines the 3 characteristics that define WMD’s: opacity, scale, and damage. These three aspects allow for feedback loops to occur within models that are shown to be WMD’s. The feedback loops allow for the WMD’s to continue functioning as they confirm biases that were already built into the system. In Rutherford and White’s (2016) findings, algorithms on Google follow a similar protocol as O’Neil’s WMD’s for reflecting societal biases and ideologies. When searching for the word “hand”, only white hands appear on Google images. This finding correlates with Google’s algorithm for showing the most shared and popular images first. White hands are valued above those of color because they reflect societal racist tendencies and ideologies about what the “default” is.

------------------------------------------------------------
O’Neil’s (2016) book was incredibly salient to me and my experiences, particularly chapter 3. The college ranking system has long been a fixture of my life as I have been constantly surrounded by questions about colleges and which ones I should apply to. I remember my father sending me articles about Northeastern’s ranking in the U.S. News Report after I was accepted. It was so important to both of us that my school was one of the top-ranked universities in the country. However, reading more about how the algorithm and model actually work, it’s become clear to me just how arbitrary and meaningless the ranking actually is. It’s all just a cash grab by colleges that want to bring in more students and more money. The ranking isn’t actually based on how well the school performs for its students and the opportunities it provides, but on how well the school looks to potential applicants and funders. It reminds me of our conversation in class about rankings in terms of Klout and attractiveness scales. Both are meaningless because they are so biased, but it seems that ranking schools is even–if not more–biased than these scales. Obama’s work to try and change how schools are ranked and quantified was also really interesting to learn about. I wonder what my college application experience would have been like if he succeeded in making a fairer and more unbiased representation of colleges in the U.S.

## Reading Response #4: "Policing “Fake” Femininity: Authenticity, Accountability, and Influencer Antifandom"

The age of influencer dominance has ended, no one is safe from scrutiny and hate campaigns. As influencers become increasingly prevalent and visible on social media sites such as Instagram and TikTok, they are receiving more backlash and consequences for distasteful or inauthentic behavior. Duffy, Miltner, and Wahlstedt (2022) describe a virtual witch hunt of inauthenticity in female influencers that is perpetrated by other women online. The group GOMI (Get Off My Internets) is an anti-fan group that thrives on insulting and making snarky comments about influencers that showcase a “perfect” life where they “have it all”. Women who can balance their career, relationship, and appearance without sacrificing their femininity are scrutinized in any way possible–either through comments about their bodies undergoing plastic surgery or photoshop, having domineering husbands, or putting their career over childrearing. Duffy, Miltner, and Wahlstedt (2022) describe an instance where an influencer by the name of Arielle Charnas was canceled for potentially faking a positive COVID test. Her inauthentic behavior and disregard for quarantining placed her at the forefront of hate campaigns. Lerman (2020) describes this instance as well to incite a conversation about influencer authenticity during the pandemic and subsequent BLM protests. Charnas was seen delaying the launch of her brand because of the claims of inauthenticity and wanted to prove that she did not want to take away from more important social movements such as BML. In the same vein, Lorenz (2018) comments on authenticity in brand-sponsored posts by influencers, describing how some fake sponsorships paint themselves in a more marketable and successful light. Influencers are now shifting to a more “authentic” image to avoid hate campaigns by online groups, however, it remains to be seen if this will actually be successful.

------------------------------------------------------------
The conversation that Duffy, Miltner, and Wahlstedt (2022) engaged in was really interesting to me because I have experienced online communities of women spreading hate against each other firsthand. In any comment section or even in conversations with friends over social media there is always some sort of dialogue critiquing women. You’ll send posts to your friends and say something about how bad her Photoshop was or look at comment sections berating women for trying to be “one of the boys”. There is always a conversation about what a woman could be doing better or that you would never be doing what she is doing. Additionally, the disdain and rage women feel when they see other women having a “perfect” life without having to sacrifice their femininity or interests is a really confusing phenomenon that even I have fallen prey to. It’s difficult for women to see other women doing seemingly “more successful” things than them because of how society continuously disregards and ostracizes women for everything they do. Facing hardship and constantly having to prove that you are capable and competent is an exhausting task that many women face daily. Seeing another woman who seemingly isn’t experiencing that is enraging and allows women to feel a sort of jealousy or animosity. It makes you ask yourself, “What does she have that I don’t?”, “If I was prettier, smarter, or richer would I have the life that she does?”, “Why am I struggling when she so clearly isn't?” It’s a draining and disheartening vortex of self-loathing and perpetuates female violence that is tearing women apart, not bringing them together. Instead of creating an atmosphere of hate, we should be working to form a community that allows us to advance in society. We aren’t fixing the problem when we pit ourselves against each other, we are only allowing the cycle of misogyny and repression to continue.

## Reading Response #5: "Pushback: Expressions of resistance to the “evertime” of constant online connectivity”

“I have decided to take a break from social media to focus on myself and my real-life relationships.” This sentiment has been seen increasingly popping up on social media feeds around the world. As people begin to analyze the effect of social media and Internet use on their lives, the idea of “pushback” and what it entails is becoming more and more prevalent. Morrison and Gomez (2014) discuss this new trend towards “pushing back” through their research into why and how people are deciding to disconnect. Morrison and Gomez (2014) describe “pushback” as “a reaction against the overload of information and changing relationships brought about by communication technologies”. In other words, “pushback” is a way to step back and look at behaviors surrounding social media and assess what moving forward should look like to each individual. Morrison and Gomez (2014) outline the 5 reasons why people are reassessing their Internet use. These reasons include emotional dissatisfaction, external values, taking back control, addiction, and privacy. Morrison and Gomez’s research found that a large portion of users cite emotional dissatisfaction as their reason to “push back” (30% as the primary reason and 47% as the secondary reason) while very few cited privacy concerns (11% primary and 16% secondary). 5 ways people are utilizing pushback were described as well. These included behavior adaptation, social agreement, tech solution, back to the woods, and no problem. Vandukul (2023) describes a similar phenomenon of the “social agreement” aspect by analyzing a group of teens that had decided to completely disconnect from social media and the Internet–some even opting to use flip phones or no phones at all. They had bonded through a shared desire to detach themselves from the mediascape, holding each other accountable to not use the Internet when they met. The group of teens represented the larger spread movement towards “unplugging” and proved that people could start to appreciate the world around them without the influence of the Internet.

------------------------------------------------------------
I found the Vandukul article particularly interesting because it was a real-life case study of actual individuals who have successfully “pushed back”. Although the Morrison and Gomez paper provided a groundwork for the “pushback” movement and cited helpful research studies, the Vandukul article showed what “pushing back” could mean for groups of people. It sheds a lot of light on how important it is to periodically unplug and become more connected with the world. I have always fantasized about a period where I could unplug and just spend my time in nature; however, it has never seemed possible for me. With constantly having to keep up with emails and participating in school, there was never an opportunity to fully disconnect. In a way, it seems that “pushing back” is inherently privileged, something that Vandukul covered in his article as well. Many people can’t afford to unplug because they need to remain connected with work or schooling. Media usage and the Internet are hardwired into every institution today, disconnecting from it is virtually career suicide. Although unplugging seems inherently refreshing and positive, there doesn’t seem to be any possibility of utilizing it unless you’re operating from a standpoint of privilege. I wish there was a way that normal people could experience disconnecting from the online world; however, with the way institutions function, I doubt that this will ever be possible.