# Angelina's reading response
###### tags: `CDA`
# Reading Responses (Set 2)

- Checklist for a [good reading response](https://reagle.org/joseph/zwiki/Teaching/Best_Practices/Learning/Writing_Responses.html) of 250-350 words
- [ ] Begin with a punchy start.
- [ ] Mention specific ideas, details, and examples from the text and earlier classes.
- [ ] Offer something novel that you can offer towards class participation.
- [ ] Check for writing for clarity, concision, cohesion, and coherence.
- [ ] Send to professor with “hackmd” in the subject, with URL of this page and markdown of today’s response.

## Reading responses 3 out of 5

### Mar 21 Fri - Manipulated

The internet seems to be a place of endless knowledge, however I now realize it is a field of five-star lies. Through [Joseph Reagle's writing](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/1cubrkat/release/2) on this whole world of manipulated reviews it is now clear to me that while online ratings are supposed to help us navigate online marketplaces, instead there is deception. While the FTC is beginning to crack down on fake reviews and implement fines, after these two readings I wonder if there is any solution or if deception will continue.

Businesses being deceptive and sneaky when it comes to online reviews is not the whole problem in my opinion. It is about how to gain and build trust while communicating online, whether that be person to person, person to company, or company to company. Fake reviews can distort someones reality of a service or product and actively distort reality. Products that are just average can be turned into something that seems amazing and the opposite can happen too. Not only are companies falsely giving themselves five star reviews, but planting bad reviews onto other companies/products.

This problem has gotten major coverage, with an article by [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/30/fake-reviews-online-ftc/) that acknowledges that fake reviews are a real issue. The article highlights studies that show 30 to 40 percent of online reviews are fake. It also highlights that the fine of $50,000 proposed by the FTC targets the individuals that write the reviews and the companies that are behind them. This is a step in the right direction but the enforcement of it may be difficult.

### Mar 24 Tue - Bemused

To not read the comments on my social media would be unthinkable for me. Whether it is an influencer's post on Instagram or a review for a product on Amazon, online comments really do shape how we think, buy, and interact with everything online. This idea became even more apparent to me through today's chapter of Joseph Reagle's [Reading the Comments](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu) which shows readers the crazy world that is the comment section. These sections can hold their own problems and be toxic but they can also reveal a lot about people and the world at large.

To me, one of the most interesting points in the chapter was about manipulated comments. This is basically how businesses, political groups, and trolls can go into comment sections and spread their own agendas. This concept made me think back to the scandal with Amazon and fake reviews. Although the word scandal is not too appropriate here since it is somewhat of an ongoing issue. The problem is companies flooding their products with super good reviews that were completely fake to trick their shoppers. The reading referred to this also as information asymmetry which I understood as the actual companies or posters know the truth and the consumers are stuck in a place of not knowing whether to believe something is real or not.

While we know that some reviews may be fake, it seems that people don't let this knowledge affect their habits when it comes to buying online products or services. We still read reviews and find comfort and reassurance in the five star ones. We tend to look at the first few reviews and not dig much deeper, with Reagle arguing that comment sections are seen as somewhat trash now. Overall, I don't think we should stop reading the comments but just look at them more skeptically.

### Tue 01 Apr - Artificial Intelligence

Thrilling and unsettling are not two words when seen together are often taken as a good thing. Those two words are how I feel about AI, something that is becoming majorly prevalent in every aspect of life. In the article [Sydney, Spotify, and Speedy](https://goldsguide.com/sydney-spotify-speedy/), we were introducted to chatbots, which I am sure most people have interacted with at this point, who have gone rogue. For example Microsoft's Bing AI 'Sydney' went chaotic and was talking about love and threats to users, seeming to have gone crazy and in crisis. Microsoft did reign her in before any real damage but it raised the question for me of is AI too wild for our society.

In the article by Verge called [Stable Diffusion...](https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/24/23476622/ai-image-generator-stable-diffusion-version-2-nsfw-artists-data-changes), there were talks about battles over art, ownership, and control in terms of AI. With new updates it seems quite hard to copy artists or generate explicit content, which seems like a step in the right direction. However I found it quite crazy that some people are upset about this, they see it as their previously free for all AI usage is finally being reeled in. I see now that AI art is going through quite the land dispute and not everyone can be happy.

Continued from the debate on ownership and AI is the problem of generative AI, which is explored in the Vox article [What is generative AI, and why is it suddenly everywhere?](https://www.vox.com/recode/2023/1/5/23539055/generative-ai-chatgpt-stable-diffusion-lensa-dall-e). This is sort of a zoom out from more specific problems and shows that generative AI is expanding super quickly and creating a range of content that is sometimes beautiful or funny and sometimes just weird. This stuff coming out of generative AI is raising major ethical and legal questions also in terms of ownership and morals.

### Apr 11 Fri - Digital language and generations

So apparently, LOL doesn't even mean laughing out loud anymore. Reading chapter three of Because Internet and the [NPR Interview ](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/31/747020219/our-language-is-evolving-because-internet) with Gretchen McCulloch felt like a linguistic deciding situation within the digital world. I feel like McCulloch has this uncanny ability to make you realize that every little weird thing we do online, in this case saying lol, are in the big picture a lingustic shift when we thing they are just to defuse any awkward tension. In the NPR piece I found it interesting that periods can actually read as being passive aggressive. I mean that wasn't exactly a new concept I found interesting today, I use the period in texts as a somewhat passive aggressive all of the time. For me, I normally only use periods in emails or texts to people like the moms I babysit for or someone else super important. Otherwise, when I use period's they normally are to add a little attitude onto a message.

In the chapter of the book we were to read, I realized I am fully an internet person. From old internet people to semi internet people I feel like the evolution of online language feels personal to me but also communal to the world. I really enjoyed how the author framed online writing as writing yourself into existence. To me it was poetic and surprisingly real especially for those of us who have had entire friendships die over social media platforms or group chats. In the end, to be honest, it is comforting to know that my emoji usage and "lol"'s sent are somewhat meaningful in the world of linguistics.

### Apr 15 Tues - Pushback

I sometimes wonder if giving my future kids iPads are basically like giving them a 24/7 sugar IV. To me, kids with constant iPad access are being drained of curiosity and attention span and I constantly juggle my plan on how I would give my kids access to technology.

In [Now in College, Luddite Teens Still Don’t Want Your Likes](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/style/luddite-teens-reunion.html) I kept imagining myself as a mom one day, and showing my kids my old DS or something like that like a relic and telling my kids that was my entertainment and freedom. In the reading, I kind of understood the teens trading their smartphones for sketchbooks and novels. It kind of touched the part of me that wonders what my life would be like without my phone or social media. Back to the motherhood aspect, it makes me wonder if I am going to be the weird mom who doesn't let my kids have technology until they are like 13, or will I cave since all of the other kids will have it.

In [Pushback](https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4902), which gave me a more adultish and academic lens, I was interested in the phrase "evertime." It is exactly how it feels to always be available and connected. It is like our brains never really ever turn off or log off on our phones. What I think pushback has to do with this is that it has become a full-on behavioral category. There is a whole group of people who want to unplug and basically live in the woods.

Both of these pieces really made me reflect on how addicted we all are not only to technology but to the identity aspect that comes with it. The Luddites are doing something revolutionary to me, choosing to me bored. I think most of us are kind of scared to be bored. The Luddites seem so self-aware and and alive, which I want my kids to be, but I also want them to be included. So while I don't have any answers to my future parenting qualms, I do know that I will try to make them and myself more bored sometimes.