# Reading Responses Set 2

## April 1- Manipulation
One thing I vividly remember being said in my home as a child is that "if there are rules, people will find every single way around them instead of doing the right thing". This seemingly rings true in the world of online commerce and business. Chapter 3 of Joseph Reagle's *Reading the Comments* focuses on the manipulation of the internet's anonymous nature, taking advantage of the fact that most times, you won't be able to see who's leaving a review. This is done for a number of reasons, but it seems two primary rationales stand out the most.
The first is businesses using fake accounts to make positive reviews for themselves. Once again, the anonymity that the internet affords to its users is being used against them, fooling them with disingenuous thoughts and reviews. Of course, the primary reason a business would do this is to boost their earnings, as the marketers already know that many people rely on word of mouth to determine where to spend their money on a service. This practice can also overshadow comments or reviews that are negative, but still geniune. Businesses can also pay people to spread good word about their business. This seems more limited to larger businesses and corporations, as their funds would be less restricted to a set budget. These kinds of practices make it harder for consumers to sort through the bs and find reliable reviews that were created with the purpose of helping others make a decision on where to spend their hard earned money.
The second reason businesses or individuals may leave bad or fake reviews is for the purpose of vengenance or retribution. If a customer dislikes the wait or the way an employee merely looked at them, they can go and leave a scathing review with no consequence. Likewise, bigger businesses may pay writers to spread negative reviews about a competitor. One example from my hometown that comes to mind is a nail salon offering discounts to customers to leave bad reviews on the nalon salon a few streets down. Ironically, they both ended up closing anyways.

## April 8- Bemused

## April 12- Algorithmic Discrimination

## April 22- Authenticity, Work and Influence
The seeming paradox in the relationship influencers have with authenticity is a fascinating one, similar to the one politicians and lawmakers have with their constituents. People expect transparency and both groups of people usually build their base from being their "true self" that is appealing to their audience.
It does seem that authenticity is making somewhat of a comeback. This could be attributed to a growing "cancel culture"(I personally think this is really just holding people accountable for their wrongdoings, but that's another discussion). Given the ease of finding information about another person online, it's not really too difficult to find out if someone or something is inauthentic. In 2019, twitter user @EBT was exposed for being a white man posing as a black woman, building a significant following through ingenuine means. This caused deserved backlash, resulting in the loss of his platform. I also think one way that authenticity is becoming more important is because much of social media is being permeated with discussions about social justice and the current state of our world. People want to know that the influencer they are putting time into and supporting are genuine about their stance, whatever it may be. This is increasingly common on Tiktok, which I have observed through my own time on the app.
There is this increased push against misinformation on the app, and this has led to a kind of vetting of content creators. For example, much like the fake sponsorships highlighted in Lorenz's article, there has been a push to ensure that people have correct information about a brand, despite what an influencer might be saying about it. One user, @cherishandfavor, gives honest reviews about trending products so that users can decide if they want to buy without the clutter of influencer ads.
Another thing I wanted to point out is this trend of trying to deplatform people who are less than stellar people. This often includes people with a history of sexual harassment or assault or people who are bigoted in some way. The general consensus is is that these people have caused others harm and, if they can't be held responsible by the law, they should at least be punished by taking away their influence over others.

## April 26- Pushback
The arguments behind limiting internet consumption seem to have come up right before a big boom in technology and the increase in the availability of internet access. Before I continue engaging with the readings, I found it interesting that some of the earliest studies mentioned in the Gomez and Morrison report come from right around the time iPhone began to take hold of the cell phone market. There may be some correlation between the touch screen model and increased use of the internet and all of its facilities.
Definitely the most interesting part of the pushback article are the motivations for pulling away from technology. The one that caught my attention the most is definitely the emotional disatisfaction factor. While the internet can be good for finding connections and maintaining them, it can also be a factor in causing anxiety and exaggerating other mental health issues. I also think that this motivation is heavily influenced by one's personality, as Gomez and Morrison pointed out. Some people may become more drained than others and some may be able to engage with the internet without experiencing these same effects. Some may find it easier and more suitable to come up with a way to balance their screen time better than to completely remove themselves from the internet. In fact, this seems to be the most common behavior Gomez and Morrison observed in their study. People find numerous ways to do this: putting a timer on their phone, seeking friends or family to hold them accountable for their usage, or even downgrading to a flip phone. This is definitely a more reasonable way to find balance in a world that is so dominated by the internet.
I also think that this is something that could be beneficial when it comes to creators and how they interact with people in the spaces they have created. So often many people are driven away from creating content because people can be so unnecessarily cruel when it comes to commenting and criticism. It could just be a good way to balance a constant influx of criticism by stepping away for a bit, then coming back once they are comfortable. I'm not saying these creators shouldn't moderate their spaces, but if things happen to get too tough, this should be an option that they can take without being judged too harshly.