# Reading Response 1

What would become of me if there weren’t any secure connections when I am on the internet? That’s all I could think about while reading “​​How HTTPS Secures Connections: What Every Web Dev Should Know” and “How the Web Works”. Both authors of these are heavily focusing on the technical aspects and safety nets of the web. Specifically, Hartley Brody, the author of “​​How HTTPS Secures Connections: What Every Web Dev Should Know”, spends quite a bit of time explaining the inner workings of encryption. I found that he summarized the whole process best by saying, “the client and the server can both use their own private keys – along with some shared, public information – to agree upon a shared secret key for the session”(Brody). This way of simplifying the process of certification for a less technology inclined audience, was something I found sincerely compelling. I found that Brody was extremely conscientious of his audience while writing. I do not consider myself a technology savvy individual but with minimal effort, I understood his main points. He was effective in his explanations because of his analogies. His authentication section refers to phone calls between friends as the basis for his analogy. I understood the consequences that occur if data is not encrypted in the way that it is in our new digital age.
Both readings heavily intersected in their explanations of how the internet works and how people have worked to make the internet safe for the unsuspecting user who could easily become prey. If the safeguards didn't exist the internet would be something of a trap, no one would be safe from online sabotage making for a much less useful internet. Without the safeguards the web wouldn’t be moderated as it is today, there would be much more fear introduced into the equation, potentially deterring many from using it to the full potential. Public and private key encryption is just scratching the surface of internet security, but the simple ingenuity behind the concept ensures that it is a failsafe method of keeping the general public users safe on the internet.

# Reading Response 2
Togetherness and having a sense of community are all gears in the machine of a smooth running operation. We cooperate in order to be more efficient and to work towards a greater good for the community. In the “Gossip” section of the article that we read, it depicts cooperation as a defense mechanism. It is said that cooperation within a group will work for the greater good of the community and allows all of the members benefits, even if not direct benefits. In “Super Cooperators” by Martin Novak, an idea is reached that it’s in everyone's best interest to cooperate due to his idea of “indirect reciprocity”. I took this to mean that when a community cooperates to strive towards the greater good, not all members are affected the same way. This doesn’t mean that they don’t benefit, it may just not be directly from the task that the community cooperated on. Cooperation is a group effort that is imperative for the ultimate survival/wellness of the community.
Failing to cooperate can be blamed on several things. The most obvious shortcoming is selfishness. This was explored in Novak’s prisoner example. If the prisoners were to act selfishly and not cooperate, it results in both of them spending more time in jail than they would have had they just cooperated. This internal selfishness comes up when one spends more time thinking of their individual gain rather than group gain. A utilitarian approach would reveal this to be the incorrect choice as there would be a higher group satisfaction and gain if all members cooperated.
It took some brain power to determine how these readings applied to our online world. I realized that our online communities are much like the one I have described in this response. Members of these online communities would benefit just the same to cooperation on a wide scale. I believe this is why, on many sites, you must adhere to community guidelines– a widespread gesture of cooperation that affects everyone indirectly. This realization is what connected the two topics of the web and cooperation for me.

# Reading Response 3

While reading what Rheingold had to say, I was filled with skepticism. Seriously, how accurate can it be that there are so few degrees of separation among most people. Rheingold makes many claims that seem quite controversial and honestly untrue at first glance. However, after some thought is given to the statements he makes, and after reading about the experiments that he mentions, it becomes apparent that there is truth behind his words. He discusses his idea of nodes: to summarize, these nodes are comparative to single beings within a much larger network. Some nodes are larger than others, these being called supernodes. If a smaller node is noticed and publicized by a larger node, then that smaller node has the potential to become a larger social contact. He begins to analyze this idea using social network analysis where he describes how large companies can utilize the idea of nodes. If a larger company caters towards many smaller, nicher nodes they might have more success building a market than if they were focusing on the largest popular nodes. I found this idea to be extremely compelling among all of his ideas.
In terms of how Rheingold’s ideas apply to me I was shocked when I compared some of his work to my daily life. He mentions that “ties can represent kinship, friendship, or acquaintanceship, and can also stand for economic transactions, sexual relationships… the kind of relationship that can create a tie is broadly defined”(Rheingold 203). I began to think about my own ties here at school: and he is 100% correct. I know many people by association, so much so that there are instances where a friend of a friend mentions someone and I can reply with “wait! I know them!” Rheingold even specifically mentions college students when demonstrating his ideas and I could not see anything as a more fitting example. Even at this large school I still feel that I know as many people as I did back at home, the only difference is I know all these people by association.

# Reading Response 4
Certain aspects of internet discourse allow toxic behavior such as bullying and doxxing to arise when communicating digitally. While reading the NPR article “Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts”, this became abundantly clear to me. Just seeing the statistics pointing to such high numbers of hate speech and bullying posts was enough to prove to me that there has to be aspects of digital communication that allows for haters to hate with more ease. In the chapter by Joseph Reagle that I read, one of the main aspects appears to be the anonymity that one can possess behind a screen. It is discussed that certain social cues are missing when someone is behind a screen. Perhaps they are subject to having much less of a filter than they might have in person. This would result from the idea that there might not be as many consequences to harsh words when said anonymously because they are protected. It was discussed that online interaction may not feel as authentic as in person interaction so a person is less likely to watch what they say digitally. Reagle also discusses the idea of a “bully battle”. This term can be used to describe the discourse that results from 2 rivaling groups of people who both believe that they have a responsibility to correct the other side for being a bully. This ultimately stems from a hateful comment that may have been left, but both sides take this assault and run with it. As I have learned in another class, Danielle Citron discusses the idea of digital polarization. Digital polarization discusses the ease of finding strongly opinionated like-minded individuals online. This polarization allows for there to be a large backing behind the 2 sides of these so called bully battles, showing how toxic digital communication can become when taken in the wrong direction.

# Reading Response 5

MCQ 1:

In terms of sources of cooperation what is direct reciprocity?

a. Via repeated exchange
b. Via helping family members
c. Via reputation for helping
d. Via social structure of helping neighbors

MCQ 2:

What does a URL pertain to?

a. addressing and mapping
b. requesting web resource
c. location of web resource
d. requesting web resource

SAQ 1:

What are 3 key differences between a fixed and a growth mindset?

SAQ 2:
Name 3 types of dis and/or mal information, and explain what they are.

Answers:

MCQ 1:

In terms of sources of cooperation what is direct reciprocity?

**a. Via repeated exchange**
b. Via helping family members
c. Via reputation for helping
d. Via social structure of helping neighbors

MCQ 2:

What does a URL pertain to?

a. addressing and mapping
b. requesting web resource
**c. location of web resource**
d. requesting web resource

SAQ 1:

What are 3 key differences between a fixed and a growth mindset?
**The first is someone who has a fixed mindset is likely to avoid challenges for they have a fear of failing. Whereas someone with a growth mindset would embrace a challenge in hopes of learning something new. A second difference would be that someone with a fixed mindset would avoid and ignore criticism in fear of getting their feelings hurt or their minds changed. Whereas someone with a growth mindset would take criticism in stride and would learn from it. A third difference would be that someone with a fixed mindset would feel threatened by the success and work of those around them, as they might be afraid that they cannot live up to the same expectations. Whereas, someone with a growth mindset would take inspiration and motivation from the success of others.**

SAQ 2:
Name 3 types of dis and/or mal information, and explain what they are.
**One type is a false connection. This can be something like a click bait title to a video or site. The main attention grabber won't support the content presented. Another type is imposter content. Imposter content is content that is impersonating another, likely more reputable source, but is displaying false and/or harmful information. The final type is satire or parody. This is when content is put out without the main intention to harm, but rather to fool/play a joke on the audience.**