# Reading Responses - Set 1
### Gabriella Playa

## Reading Response 1
### September 20, 2022 - "How the Web Works"

The web is like a long journey to a shop. This metaphor is explained by the MDN contributors, who make the basics of the "behind the scenes" of the web interesting, and easier to understand. The most enjoyable part of this metaphor is that it *is* very relatable to our daily lives. The basic beginning is to compare "clients" and "servers", different types of computers that respond to each other to access webpages, to your home and the shop you need to get to. Yet, it isn't as simple as that. There are many other factors, such as searching up the address, or Domain Name System, so you may get to the shop, or webpage.

Though they compared component files, which are files that make up the content of a website, to the goods you buy at a shop, I believe they could have also compared the IP addresses of websites to the goods you sift through at a shop. Maybe there would be some fault in this comparison, because the "server" is the shop, and the IP address is unique to each webpage attempting to be accessed. I had this idea while reading because the unique numbers of an IP address are like goods at a grocery store: different types, but each unique in what they offer the consumer, or user.

In the close of this article, MND explains that information is sent in "packets", or bags of goods you purchase from the shop, from servers to clients, which allows content to be displayed for the user. The metaphor is useful in that it goes through the entire journey to the shop, and back to your home. It seems as though there is more to the web to explain, as this only really scratches the surface of how the web works. I do wonder though, could this metaphor be applied to a more complex explanation of how the web works, as well as this basic one?

<br/>

## Reading Response 2
### September 27, 2022 - "Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning"

Why do you think it takes pilots about two years to learn to fly a plane? Well, it's because learning is a process, and most of the time, not a fast one. Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel begin their first chapter of "Make It Stick" with a very interesting and potentially life-endangering example of how landing a plane may not make sense to us, but because pilots have thoroughly learned and memorized the ins and outs of flying, the jargon and strategies make sense to them.

I learned in the foundations of psychology class I'm currently taking about the effectiveness of the retrieval practice, that is, the process of retrieving information that actually allows you to learn better than reading and rereading a certain piece of material. I believe students prefer rereading because it has been ingrained in their brains as the best way, also possibly the most obvious, to memorize and *really learn* information. Parents, teachers, peers, and even highly regarded learning resource have pushed this form of studying since before we can remember, so who are *we* to question this?

Well, we can, and we most definitely should. A quote from the chapter that has stuck with me is simply, "It's wise to be skeptical" (8). Learning advice in our modern day is about "thinking 'smarter', not harder." This phrase is outdated, and in my opinion, tailored to a certain type of thinking that we take the first or easiest piece of advice that comes our way. Within "Illusions of Knowing" it is uncovered that strictly memorizing information is not the same as understanding the ideas, context, and process behind that memorization. Learning is understanding different aspects of a topic, not just memorizing the definition of the topic. My hypothesis after reading this chapter is that to actually know something, you should be able to hold an actual conversation about it. You should be able to use the topic, word, idea, in a sentence, or be able to formulate a thoughtful question about it.

Overall, learning is truly misunderstood because people tend to believe repeated false truths for advice over using simpler, more practical strategies that will allow us to remember and understand said information for longer.

## Reading Response 3
### October 7, 2022 - "Social Has A Shape: Why Networks Matter"

Human social networks can basically get you anywhere -- even a picnic with over a hundred people you met online -- if you do it right. Rheingold begins with the basics of human networks, getting to the barbecue with people he met on WELL later in the chapter. The chapter automatically captivates its audience by speaking to the similarity between human networks and chemical bonds; the power does not reside in the individual atom, but the structure that is formed once they are bonded. I am not a "science person", but this introduction is certainly an intriguing way to start an argument as to "why networks matter."

Specifically heartwarming, as well as a beautiful normalization of the evolution of strong-ties and social capital on the web, is Rheingold's story of Philcat. The picnic referenced above, is one that Rheingold and Philcat's online community hosted for their WELL online community. I believe these types of relationships are the most valuable, and agree when Rheingold talks specifically about how modern people obsess so much over making money, we create short-tied relationships, seemingly to climb some type of never-ending social/economic ladder.

I do plan to take Rheingold's advice and apply it to my own life, specifically when I choose who I want to cultivate relationships that allow me to maximize awareness about "crap detection" online. “The strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time of the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie" (16). This was not just a chapter blurting information about the importance of face-to-face human connection. Rheingold's chapter, "*Social Has a Shape: Why Networks Matter*", completely explains and convinces the reader to think of relationships in terms of social capital, but also does not reduce humanity to "economic terms", encouraging us also to remember that that we must also tend to our emotional, tangible relationships.

## Reading Response 4
### October 12, 2022 - "Haters"
### "Alienated: You Failed It! Your Skill is Not Enough!" & "Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts"

Being a troll seems like it could be fun. If anyone has ever demanded you "say it to my face", chances are, you probably didn't say whatever piece of gossip or insult you had to their face. It has been scientifically proven that these internet trolls thrive within the capacity of their anonymity, as the lack of possibility for accountability allows them to be cruel to any person who crosses their feed. People love to hate. I believe this with a passion, specifically on the "alt" sides of TikTok where most creators get "canceled" for something as miniscule as a poster hung up on their wall. "Cancel culture" is quite similar to the idea of "fail" comments and those who participate in flamefesting. People will send this person death threats, call them terrible names, yet we *all* know that these anonymous commenters would never wish death on this person to their face.

Guy Rosen, who is Meta's vice president of integrity, has made a statement within the article "Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts" that the "vast, vast, vast, vast majority of content on Facebook doesn't violate our policies and is perfectly good content." Trolls slip past AI systems that catch hate speech. I have seen a trend on TikTok specifically to recreate flagged terms that get videos taken down with symbols (ex. k!ll). Little things like this deflect AI systems from detecting there is inappropriate language in the video. Besides this, trolls hide their hate inside "bashtags", sarcastic, mocking comments inside what is supposed to be a positive hashtag.

The creators of media used to spew these hateful comments and criticisms refuse to believe any content on their platform is provided by trolls. It sometimes is hard to separate a joke from serious hate speech. Jokes online can also reach a very telling point where there is a serious threat, such as in the Kathy Sierra incident. This type of thing happens to women too often. Moving forward in this epidemic of trolls and haters online, hopefully these misogynistic systems are combated.

## Reading Response 5
### October 21, 2022 - Gender, communication, & contribution

### "The actual science of James Damore's Google Memo"

James Damore was "hashtag Fired4Truth." **NOT**. Damore decided the industry was silencing voices and certain evidence about representation in the workplace. Women and men are different biologically, obviously, but James Damore felt it was necessary to explain this to the audience of his "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." James Damore seems like a bit of an online hater. I am not quite sure whether his intent is to harm, or just to be controversial (in which case, he would be a troll), but the "thing-oriented" mindset seems so tedious. His message that women do not belong in authoritative positions because of their biological sex was debunked by his *own* citation, David Schmitt, as well. There is no way it can get much worse than that.

Molteni and Roger's article did credit him for being right with one thing: biological gender difference. Within the research study, "Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences", Krasnova, Eling, Buxman, and Veltri discuss the difference of how men and women use SNSs. Within the conclusion, Krasnov et. al explain that "with the exception of self-enhancement, a different set of determinants defines satisfaction and continuance intentions of female and male members of SNSs" (Krasnov et. al, 2017). It is not surprising, as these biological and hormonal differences do play a role in how men and women think and intend certain things, but does that make either gender more or less qualified to work in a certain professional position? Multiple psychologists are working on it, but there is a surmountable amount of evidence against this.

Overall, the goal to oppress the population of women working in the tech industry drove Damore to write his piece. Damore was unwilling to listen to any other logical points of view than what he had written in his memo. Too many times we have let the man have the last ignorant word in prejudiced situations like this. Within Naomi Slater's article, though, we receive hope about some commencement for change. If there is hope to reform and reclaim identity on opensource, we can close the gap of unequal representation in the workplace.