###### 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 5 out of 5

# 10/31- TikTok, fakes, and appropriation

"A great many blacks have become rich on the back of it. An even greater number of whites have prospered," (Ellis Cashmore qt. in Cherid, 2021) is something that continues to be so baffling to me. It reminds me of Jesse Pinkman in *Breaking Bad* talking about Walter White saying, "He can't keep getting away with this!" But back to these three articles, and the issue is, that people do continue to get away with this. Within all three of these articles, we hear about others faking who they are to benefit themselves. This feels like disinformation to me, as these people are falsely showing themselves physically, culturally, and in general for their benefit. “Will this ‘posthuman world be a post-stereotype world?’ Chu continues, ‘Or would stereotypes look posthuman?’” (Kim, 2021) is a question that will not be answered because nobody knows. However, I think that the stereotypes may only become worse because of all of these fakes of body images, facial images, and personas.

In Cherid’s article, it starts by telling us a list of people who blackfished for their own benefit. But when they finally admit it, do they get punished? I think it would only be right if this were the case. People should get punished for fakes to benefit themselves in cases like this, as the article said, it may limit others who actually fit the description chances of these scenarios. However, I think it would be an issue if these people did get punished as people who photoshop images like “Coconut Kitty” probably won’t get punished. So I don’t know if there is a right answer.

# 11/3 Finding Someone & Living Alone

What’s really to blame for the lack of love from dating apps? Is it the idea that we rely more on robots than humans for connections? Is it all the different lies in profiles? Or could it just be the evolution of trends and the idea that we have outgrown them? Derek Thompson tied two of these together very well saying, “ It merely came along as that dusty old shroud was already unraveling,” ( Thompson, 2019) when talking about the robot algorithm in dating apps taking over the mutual connections linking people. Sadly, I’d have to agree with him. The algorithm came in at a great time and it just boomed. There isn’t much that would’ve been able to change it. But this new trend came with issues too. Christian Rudder mentioned many in his 2010 article, whether it be the lies in height, income, or even pictures. They all hurt your character when you finally meet the person in person if it ever happens. Rudder said this, and it made me think about how often my friends and I joke about each other’s heights. Everyone seems to be shooting the shit with it, but I can see it happening on a profile.

But in honesty, could we have just outgrown the old trends in dating? In Joseph Chaime’s 2021 article, he mentioned many different statistics and how they have grown. But I truly believe that this may have come with time as people changed, medicine advanced, and so did technology. So, although I do think technology changed these trends a little, I think there is a lot more to play into it than just the tech.

# 11/7 Ads & Social Graph Background

“It is based on the simple economics of demand and supply,” (Stokes 2013), this is a statement that could be said about anything when it comes to advertising. It is, as said, simple economics, but in online advertising, it is quite fascinating. The demand here is a product or need that a consumer needs, but with ad tracking, it will go wherever it needs to to get the supply, delivering the product or need. With online advertising, the main idea truly isn’t too different from advertising in other situations, as it just shows the product, and tries to complete the conversion. But of course, there is still online advertising’s biggest tool, tracking. This allows companies to use web analytics from browser to browser (really it just uses your cookies) and continue to get the ads. It follows you around the internet and shows you the demand you were looking at all over the place, meaning different websites. There are so many for this too, as Stokes talks about Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and more, and these are just some. Cleo Abrams, the creator of the Vox YouTube video mentioned Google and Facebook as these are almost the golden children of online advertising. They send their ads but also send out the ads of others. The way these cookies and ads benefit is through social networks or an idea of them. People will send the ads, or the cookies will be sent through websites.

In Abrams’ work, she mentioned how Google and Facebook both have their ways of “blocking” third-party cookies. It left me pretty confused, as I don’t necessarily understand how their loophole works. Is it just like a cookie on steroids? In Abrams’ video, Lou said, “I would say that the advertising-only business model has caused products to become less good than they could be.” (Lou Montulli in Abrams 2020) I’m not sure if I agree with this. I feel like this gets people what they want/need, but I do understand that it might not be the perfect one for them. What would be a better way of going about this, either from a business model standpoint or even from an advertising standpoint?

# 11/10 Manipulated

Isn’t everything manipulated online at this point? Algorithms have been put into place almost everywhere you go, especially on social media apps. And although these algorithms have their upsides of showing what you probably want to see because it’s popular, they have their downsides of lowering posts with the least engagement although it could still be something you want to see. This is exactly how things are manipulated online. It is very difficult for many small companies to start up because of this, as they can’t pick up the necessary attention without boosting their posts. Also, many retailers or companies will do whatever they can to get positive engagement, as they know this is what their products need to be boosted and shown higher. Like Reagle (2015) said, “Amazon and others have ‘let truth loose’ with user comment, but that truth is being overtaken by fakery and manipulation,” basically saying that there isn’t much of the truth left online because of all of this manipulation by companies doing whatever they can do boost themselves. This is exactly why people don’t know what to believe on the internet —consumers and those who post— as there is so much fake engagement that leads to the promotion of posts.

“The main tactic of reputation services is to ensure that enough positive content is on the Web to drown out the bad,” (Reagle 2015), but why is this the case? I know that plenty of companies are going to pay people to write them good reviews and give high ratings if they have low ratings and/or reviews, as they need to try and replenish their ratings. But the algorithm shouldn’t necessarily allow this. I believe that there is a need to see the bad online in some scenarios as people need to know to stay away from things, which is why I believe the manipulation in the online world has crossed lines that it shouldn’t even be near.

# 12/1 Authenticity, work, & influence

So many people on the internet don’t show themselves as who they are, at least for the sake of brands. Nothing feels genuine anymore. Influencers will do almost anything they can to get a good deal, and as we talked about for Manipulation, it has drastically changed the internet. I think that we can blame companies for this because they want to seem like they’re relatable. Like Lerman (2020) said, “Partnering with relatable, down-to-earth, ‘authentic’ influencers was one way to do that,” when companies were trying to promote their brand after COVID-19 shut everything down. These influencers also tend to push these narratives, no matter the post. Some people even make their whole accounts feel this way, just like Palak Joshi did, “‘They just assume everything is sponsored when it really isn’t,’ she said. And she wants it that way” (Lorenz 2018). When accounts do this, it can feel like there is no reason to follow them as their posts feel so ungenuine. In cases like these, I often unfollow the accounts.

If so many influencers face backlash, is the money worth it? I hadn’t even known there were blogs specifically made to hate on influencers, and when it comes to gendered content these blogs get specific; “In other words, the targeted influencers serve as individual scapegoats for the hatebloggers’ ire at the existence and reproduction of problematic, narrowly defined ideals of femininity, domestic life, and the possibility of ‘having it all,’” (Duffy et al. 2022) and as we learned from the YouTube video in class about the influencer quitting social media, they don’t have it all and their lives are full of fake things. It leaves me wondering if the influencer lifestyle is truly worth it, especially when so many influencers face such harsh backlash over nothing.