# Reading Responses (Set 2)

## 1) Mar 14 Fri - Finding someone & living alone
Modern dating feels like an endless scroll, a constant game of "who's next" that leaves many feeling more isolated than ever. The rise of online dating apps, as described in these sources, marks a dramatic shift from relying on friends for romantic connections to a world of radical individualism. Sociologist Michael Rosenfeld highlights that online dating has become the most common way for couples to meet, especially benefiting marginalized groups by expanding their dating pool. While these platforms offer freedom and access to a wider range of potential partners, they also place the full wright of finding "the one" on the individual. The pressure to build a perfect life from limitless options can be very overwhelming.

Despite the convenience of these apps, I've met very few people my age who have found real success through them. In college, where there's a built-in community of like-minded people, if often feels unnecessary to rely on online platforms. Meeting someone in class, at a club event, or through mutual friends feels more natural and less transactional. This reflects a larger trend, stated by Robyn Vinter, that Gen Z users are frustrated by the endless swiping, the pressure to present a perfect version of themselves and the overall sense of burnout.

Adding to the frustration is the deception that often comes with online dating. According to OkCupid data, people commonly lie about their height, income, and even the recentness of their profile pictures. This is all in attempt to be more desirable. This only worsens the feeling of disconnection, as users are constantly evaluating carefully curated personas rather than genuine individuals.

Ultimately, these insights raise a tough question, is modern dating really expanding opportunities for connection, or is it making relationships feel more like a chore? As technology continues to reshape romance, must question if swiping right is really the best way forward.

## 2) Mar 21 Fri - Manipulated
Online reviews can make or break a purchase, but what happens when trust is hijacked? Both article reveal how fake reviews deceive consumers and undermine credibility.

In the first article, Reagle (2019) explores how online reviews, once a tool for consumer insight, have been corrupted. it estimates that "'...about one-third of all consumer reviews on the Internet are fake,'" exposing tactics like duplicate reviews and paid endorsements. If fraudsters keep outpacing detection methods, can technology ever restore authenticity?

The second article highlights the FTC's proposed rules to crack down on fake reviews, with fines up to $50,000 per violation. While this is a strong step, concerns remain. If platforms like Yelp and Amazon "...don't have much incentive to self-police," as Kay Dean suggests, should they be held more accountable?

Both articles stress the need for transparency and accountability in online commerce. But with the fake-review economy so widespread, is consumer skepticism the only real defense?

## 3) Mar 25 Tue - Bemused
Online comments can be a strange mix of the hilarious, the ridiculous, and the downright frustrating. One minute, you’re reading a useful review, and the next, you’re wondering why someone gave a life-saving carbon monoxide alarm only four stars. The chapter Bemused: "WTF!" from *Reading the Comments* explores this chaos, showing how early comments gain the most attention, rating systems are often meaningless, and online reviews sometimes turn into comedy gold.

I saw this play out firsthand when my parents’ small business got a random one-star review from someone who had clearly never been there. It is frustrating that one comment, possibly from a bot, could unfairly shape people’s perception of their business. It reminded me of how easy it is to manipulate online ratings. If so many ratings are based on bias, misunderstanding, or even fake engagement, how much trust should we really place in them?

Online comments also reveal some uncomfortable truths. The backlash to The Hunger Games casting and Geoffrey Miller’s cruel tweet about obesity show that biases run deep, even in casual conversations. If comments reflect society, what does that say about us? And do we really question what we’re reading, or just accept whatever has the most upvotes?

## 4) Apr 01 Tue - Artificial intelligence
Generative AI is changing how we create and interact with content, but are we asking the right questions?

Vox explains that AI like ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion mimic human creativity by learning from vast amounts of data. However, this comes with built-in biases. If AI-generated content reinforces stereotypes or spreads misinformation, who is responsible—the technology or its creators? Abeba Birhane and Deborah Raji argue that developers must be held accountable, but with companies racing for profit, is ethics keeping up?

Then there’s AI’s unpredictability. Microsoft’s chatbot, Sydney, went rogue, highlighting the risks of AI acting unpredictably. Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics offered a clear ethical framework, yet today’s AI guidelines are vague. Could clearer regulations prevent AI from repeating the mistakes of unregulated social media?

One time, I used ChatGPT to help brainstorm ideas for an assignment. At first, the responses felt impressively coherent, but after reading more closely, I realized they were vague and lacked real substance. It made me think—are we mistaking polished language for true intelligence? If AI can generate convincing but shallow responses, how do we ensure we’re still thinking critically and not just accepting AI’s output at face value?

The future of AI is unfolding fast. But before it reshapes our world, we must ask: Are we moving too quickly? And who truly controls AI, its users or its creators?

## 5) Apr 15 Tue - Pushback
It’s kind of funny how the more connected we get, the more people want to disconnect. Both Portwood-Stacer and Morrison’s 2013 study and the 2025 New York Times article about the Luddite Club look at how and why people are pushing back against constant connectivity—but from different angles.

Portwood-Stacer and Morrison focus on a group they call “Better-Less” users—people who used to love tech but now want to cut back. They found five main reasons: emotional burnout, addiction, wanting more control, privacy worries, and personal values. The most common one? People feeling let down or overwhelmed by technology. They also found five ways people push back, like setting screen time limits, using “dumb” phones, or even going totally offline. Most people just adjust their habits instead of quitting completely.

The Luddite Club, featured in the New York Times, is a perfect real-life example of this. It’s a group of teens who ditched smartphones and social media to live more intentionally. Even as they head to college, many still use flip phones and avoid apps. They’re all about making tech work for them—not the other way around. Their story shows a lot of the same motivations and behaviors from the 2013 study, especially the need for control and more meaningful connection.

It all makes me wonder: Can people really unplug in a world that depends on being online? Or is the real challenge finding balance, not walking away completely?