Dear Professor Reagle,

I hope this email finds you well! Here’s my required reading response for today: https://hackmd.io/@VNSFbBHkS4mR-HHppIp6Sw/H1RMVfKRge.

Please let me know if you would like any more information. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks and Regards, Rohan Biju

---

tags: CDA

Reading Responses (Set 1)

Reading responses 5 out of 5

Sep 30 Tue - Why We Can’t Cooperate and Can We Fix It?

“Natural selection actually opposes cooperation in a basic Prisoner’s Dilemma” is what Nowak explains, and this reveals why getting everyone to work together on climate change is so difficult. The problem is that people who cooperate end up worse off than those who just take advantage of everyone else’s efforts, which isn’t about morality but about how evolution shaped our thinking. Nowak’s climate experiments showed this pattern clearly when anonymous contributions failed because participants reseabed like Hardin’s herdsmen in the Tragedy of the Commons, where each person calculating their individual actions barely matters while the personal costs feel significant. I believe this same logic shows up today when people decide whether to buy electric vehicles or solar panels, weighing the high upfront costs against what seems like minimal impact on global emissions. Dunbar’s research adds another layer of difficulty by showing that humans can only maintain about 150 relationships, creating a huge gap between how our cooperation instincts evolved and the billions of people needed to coordinate on climate action. When groups exceed this number, Reagle notes that “the magic has gone” and “graffiti and scams proliferate” as social monitoring breaks down, which helps explain why massive climate summits like COP29 struggle to produce binding commitments even when everyone agrees on the same basic problem.

What I found interesting was that Nowak’s research shows punishment doesn’t actually work well, which contradicts how most environmental policy operates. His experiments revealed that “winners do not punish, losers do” and the worst performers “used punishment most often,” suggesting that carbon taxes and regulations might create backlash instead of cooperation. What worked better was making contributions public, since Milinski’s climate games found that “the reputation effect was surprisingly strong” when people knew others could see their actions. This explains why corporate environmental rankings and apps that track companies’ carbon footprints often succeed where penalties fail. The challenge is that Reagle also points out digital spaces are “a big place” where we interact with strangers instead of people we actually know, which weakens the repeated interactions that make reputation really matter. This creates questions about climate content on Instagram, X, or TikTok, where anyone can post about their eco-friendly lifestyle to their big fanbases. Does the online reputation actually changes behavior or just creates performances without a meaningful impact on the actual problem?

Oct 3 Fri - Networks From the Perspective of Co-Op Search and Content Creation

Co-op Perspective

“The strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie” is what Granovetter explains, and this definition reveals something crucial about the Northeastern co-op search that most students miss. The problem is that we naturally focus on building strong ties with people in our immediate circles, like classmates, professors, and close friends, but the research shows that “you are more likely to find a job… if you have a large and diverse network of weak ties” because those acquaintances connect you to completely different networks with different opportunities. The current tech job market makes this even more relevant since most positions get filled through referrals before they’re even posted publicly, meaning that having connections across different networks matters more than having a perfect resume. What I found interesting was the chapter’s emphasis on being a “bridge” between different networks, which connects directly to my situation as both a CS student and a content creator, since few people occupy both the technical world and the creative industry simultaneously. The research on companies like Raytheon found that “managers who discussed ideas beyond their work groups consistently made the highest-rated suggestions,” which suggests my co-op strategy shouldn’t just involve networking within CS circles but should leverage my unique position connecting tech skills with content creation experience. What the article calls “social capital” is basically the favor economy where helping other students or sharing opportunities without expecting anything back builds up goodwill that might eventually connect me to co-op positions through paths I never predicted, thrusting that “the overwhelmingly direct cause of reciprocity is giving support in the first place” even when there’s no immediate payoff

Content Creation Perspective

The power law distribution explanation for why some accounts get millions of views while most get barely any traffic matches exactly what I’ve experienced with my editing account @cykl0psfilm. The article calls popular accounts “supernodes” and explains that “supernodes diffuse attention to the long tail, the way hub airports feed the regional ones,” meaning that even smaller creators can reach massive audiences if they connect to the right “nodes.” I see this playing out when I collaborate with other editors or when larger film editing accounts repost my work, since those weak ties with people I’ve never met in person create access to professional networks I wouldn’t otherwise reach. Another point is that research shows these networks create massive inequality where few accounts dominate everything, but the article also points out that collaborating with other editors and sharing techniques builds what they call “social capital,” where helping people without keeping score eventually leads to opportunities you never expected. This changes how I think about @Cykl0psfilm because instead of just producing content, I should treat it less like a portfolio and more like actual networking, where connecting with other editors and crediting collaborators matters as much as the editing quality itself.

Oct 7 Tue - Romance Scams and the Rise of Generative AI

This is a more comical representation, but it is still a threat.

According to Whitney’s research, “romance scam victims tend to be middle-aged, well-educated women” who also “score high on urgency and sensation seeking.” This is not the profile most people imagine when they think about scam victims. In a lot of scammer-catching YouTube videos, it seems like they target older folks, which I believe is more about the money since it’s easier to fool them due to their lack of digital literacy. But romance scams are different because they’re targeting smarter and younger people with specific psychological vulnerabilities. Sarah’s case illustrates this perfectly. She sent over $250,000 to a man she never video chatted with, maxing out credit cards and cashing out her entire 401K for someone pretending to be a loving deployed soldier. What struck me most about the readings is how they reveal catfishing as a deliberate, cruel psychological operation rather than just opportunistic fraud. March’s study found that perpetrators score higher on the “dark tetrad” of personality traits, with sadism being “a very strong predictor of catfishing behaviours.” These are not just scammers looking for quick money; they are people who actually enjoy causing harm. The research also shows that victims are not lacking intelligence but rather have specific psychological vulnerabilities like impulsivity and addictive dispositions that scammers deliberately exploit. The fact that more educated people are actually more vulnerable suggests overconfidence might play a role, as they believe they are too smart to get scammed.

The real-world damage caused by these scams extends far beyond individual cases. The FTC reports that “in 2022, nearly 70,000 people reported a romance scam, and reported losses hit a staggering $1.3 billion.” What is particularly concerning is how scammers create an addictive cycle by constantly moving the goalposts with new emergencies and crises that require urgent money transfers. The most alarming aspect is that this research predates the very recent explosion in generative AI. With tools like Sora 2 and other deepfake generators becoming more accessible, scammers will no longer need to rely on stolen photos. They can create completely fake video calls with realistic faces and voices. Sarah mentioned that one red flag was that John would never video chat with her, but now scammers can fake that verification method as well. Voice cloning technology has advanced to the point where someone’s voice can be replicated from just a few seconds of audio. If people are already losing billions to scammers using basic stolen photos, the damage will be exponentially worse when victims can have full video conversations with AI-generated personas that look and sound completely real.

Oct 14 Tue - Do Anonymity and Transparency Lead to the Same Problems?

Wrapping “our original data in layers of encryption, much like an onion is wrapped in layers of…well, more onion” is how the Tor article describes its approach to anonymity. This got me thinking about whether privacy is always the right answer for technology. The way Tor uses multiple relays so that no single person knows both where data comes from and where it goes is impressive from a technical standpoint, but it seems designed to avoid accountability entirely. The Bitcoin article’s explanation that “the exchange of a digital apple is now just like the exchange of a physical one” through a public ledger sounded like a solution at first because everyone can see transactions happening. However, the trump meme coin article shows that transparency does not actually stop bad behavior. The article states that “the blatant pump-and-dump nature of these tokens could set a precedent for the next four years,” and Trump launched these tokens knowing everyone would see it happen. If he can do this publicly without real consequences, and if Ross Ulbricht could run Silk Road anonymously on Tor, then it seems like neither system actually protects people from being scammed or exploited.

The real issue is that both anonymity and transparency fail without enforcement. Tor provides complete privacy where “relays can’t be held liable for data they can’t see,” which sounds good for protecting innocent people, but also protects criminals. Bitcoin does the opposite with a public ledger where the system does not need “Uncle Tommy (third-party) to make sure I didn’t cheat,” yet pump and dump schemes from Trump and other internet personalities keep happening anyway. The contrast shows that seeing everything or seeing nothing leads to the same result when there are no consequences for bad actions. I have noticed these schemes becoming more prevalent across different influencers, but it makes me wonder if technology alone can ever create a fair system. Maybe the problem is that we keep trying to solve human behavior problems with technical solutions when what we really need is better enforcement and accountability, regardless of whether systems are anonymous or transparent.

Oct 17 Fri - Midterm Exam Preparation

Multiple Choice Questions

1. According to Lauder and March (2023), which personality trait was NOT a significant predictor of catfishing behavior?
   1. Psychopathy
   2. Sadism
   3. Narcissism
   4. Machiavellianism
2. Which of the following is NOT one of the productive learning practices discussed by Brown et al. (2014)?
   1. Spaced practice
   2. interleaved practice
   3. mass/blocked practice
   4. elaboration

Short answer/Essay Questions

1. Describe the psychology & Demographic of romance scam victims based on Whitty’s research. What are three characteristics that make someone more vulnerable to these scams, and why might these traits increase susceptibility?

2. Describe the Marshmallow study and explain what the original findings suggested. How was this study later debunked or revised, and what does the newer research tell us about self-control and life outcomes?

Answer key

Multiple Choice Answers

1. Machiavellianism
2. Mass/blocked practice

Essay Answers

1. Romance scam victims tend to be middle aged with higher education and exhibit three key psychological traits: urgency, sensation-seeking, and addictive tendencies. Victims often have weaker social networks making the scammer’s attention more valuable. Urgency causes the victim to override critical thinking and prevents them from reaching out to other people who might spot red flags.

2. The original marshmallow study was an experiment where the children were given a choice, they could eat one marshmallow immediately or if they waited they could have 2 marshmallows. The main goal of the study was to see the children’s ability to delay gratification. The original marshmallow study’s findings were that children who were able to wait longer were believed to have better life outcomes. The ability to resist the marshmallow was thought to predict success in academics, careers, health, and relationships. But the revised study debunked this. The study showed that the environment reliability matters. When children experienced an unreliable experimenter, they were much less likely to wait for the second marshmallow. This finding suggested that waiting isn’t just about self control, but it’s also about trust of whether waiting will pay off.

Dear Professor Reagle,

Here is the full reading response page. I’m not sure if you needed me to email you this or not but I just wanted to be sure.

Reading responses 5 out of 5 Sep 30 - Cooperation Cooperation in the modern age is a topic that cannot be discussed without recognizing the impact that digitization has made on societal constructs, especially that among the youth. With the increased presence of blogging sites and other forms of social media, younger generations are being exposed to judgement and criticisms that someone their age should not have exposure to. Questions like am I enough? or am I ugly? exit the mouths of too many. These are often followed by voices who’s words should remain silent. Doubts that are reinforced by someone sitting on the opposite side of a screen with no right or stake to say such things. The internet is a tool for communication. But more often than not, it is a hinderance to its users. Mob mentality reigns supreme as ideas fabricated by influencers with no educational backing, will impact the thought processes of viewers and can lead to consequences that were never intended. Why do we cooperate? Because we want to fit in? Is it because we are afraid of going against the grain? In an age bound by the internet, being different or unique is met with a spew of hate comments from people with no ground to stand on. Martin Nowak in his 2011 book titled “Super Cooperators”, states the following, ” Punishment could indeed force cooperation in the public goods game but at a cost that was so high that it destroyed the advantages of cooperation.” His words support the idea that stepping out of line in a cooperative environment negate the benefits of having such a society. These impacts are visible as children, especially those who are exposed to the internet at a young age, become homogenous with one another. Joseph Reagle’s article “The Bottom Half of the Web”, speaks on how within a large mob, there is greater protection compared to smaller groups. However, within these large mobs, there lies greater competition for food and mates. This is the kind of pattern that can be seen throughout the internet as the competition for correctness and or validation is intense. October 3 - Social Has a Shape Networks, especially social ones, are carefully interwoven systems that are built on connection, influence, and collaboration. In Rheingold’s 2012 article Why Networks Matter, they speak on the structures of social networks and how this affects power, information, and opportunity. He states, “Networks have structures, and structures influence the way individuals and networks behave.” The way that networks transmit information can both benefit or hinder a society based on if the infrastructure exists to spread intelligence exists. He does however stress that with an abundance of information, there is also greater motive for manipulation. The power to be gained through abusing networks and harnessing user’s emotions is substantial. Networking as a whole is a double edged sword. on one hand its ability to spread information, close societal gaps, and to allow collaboration makes for a productive society that is self-supporting and efficient. However, with all of these links between so many key nodes and hubs, the risk of manipulation and the abusing of said networks is high. These are the pros and cons that must be taken into account when laying down the blueprints to optimize a society through networking. In order to ensure productivity, flushing out corruption and ensuring security of networking bandwidths allows for fast and efficient spread of ideas and collaboration without the worry of misinformation. October 7 - Catfishing and Scams In an age where screens separate so many, it is not at all surprising that users often lie about certain aspects about themselves. This can be in the shape of manipulating their own characteristics or even outright identity theft. Online catfishes are often scammers who harness the emotions of good people to extract funds or other forms of payment for their own gain. One such example was a “Romance Scammer” who engaged with a married woman via Instagram Direct Messages (DMs). Through a long spout of romantic banter, he gained the trust of this woman through manipulation of her feelings. Giving her praise by calling her things like “My queen” or “My love”. Despite being married, she continued to put up with this behavior, claiming that it was nice to be called pretty by someone like himself. Her attraction to this seemingly charming and handsome individual was nothing but a mask as the face she had developed feelings for was that of an unrelated man. She continued to engage with this masked scammer as he began to regurgitate lies about his deployments, injuries, and woes. Believing this, she abided by his requests and by the time she had unmasked these seemingly romantic intentions, she had fed this man nearly $250,000. Draining her retirement funds, life insurance, and just about everything else she fell for the dashing illusion as her husband continued to support her. The psychology behind this relationship is intriguing as the scammer is clearly aware of their ability to butter up middle aged individuals. This validation and attention is an addictive lie that floods the victim’s brain with dopamine as they continue to chase this youth-like thrill. The somewhat risky and exciting nature of these interactions is part of the reason why middle-aged people can be most vulnerable to these scams. Monica T. Whitty, in her article Do you love me? supports this claim: “Perhaps the reason why middle-aged people are more vulnerable to romance scams is because this group of individuals have more disposable incomes and/or possibly this group are more likely to be seeking out partners on dating sites compared with other age groups. (Whitty, 2018)” Her research supports that the youthful nature of these interactions makes them so dangerous to middle-aged individuals. The most common form of leveraging emotions of good people, is saying things like “I or someone close to me is hurt or in jail”. This sort of guilt tripping is often the root of the financial portions of these scams. Too many good individuals are exploited by these scams and deserve justice. The romance catfishing is a danger that would only be found in an age like the one we are in. It is for this reason that guard should remain up, and relationships should remain in the real world. October 10, Haters Online communication is often feedback centric. In a world shielded by screens, all commentary is given whether it was requested or not. A post about an athlete hitting one of their all-time goals is often met with comments saying things like “I could have done it better”, or “you did this wrong”. Keep in mind these keyboard warriors are more likely than not sitting in their parent’s basement covered in Cheeto dust. This hypocritic behavior on the internet is far too common and the ‘Haters’ live in every comment section, critiquing people’s bodies, achievements, or opinions. All while having no stake in the matter and no ground to stand on. These bully battles are only possible as a result of the tool that is the internet. The digital barrier gives commenters the security to cower behind a screen while spewing criticism that they would never have the guts to say to someone’s face. An example of this can be found in Dr. Reagle’s 2015 book “Alienated: You fail it! Your skill is not enough!” Here he covers a so-called “Flame War” where a series of users commented on one another’s operating systems. He says “Tanenbaum declared that the design of the Linux operating system was “obsolete”; Torvalds responded - and called Tanenbaum’s projects”brain-damaged” … [A]n undergraduate is not likely to characterize a professor’s work as “brain-damaged” to his face”. This feedback, while direct and in some cases helpful, is more often than not unproductive as the discussion often turns into a “Flame War”.

Platforms such as “X”, formerly “Twitter” feed on these “Flame Wars” as a platform that started as a way for people to “[tell] the truth to strangers (Facebook was where you lied to your friends)”(Williams, 2024). As time went on, however, people’s truths became based in hate and arguments ensued and spread like wildfire. “X” poured gasoline onto this fire by supporting advertising onto the posts with higher interaction rates. Of course, the posts with the highest rates of interaction being those with the most “disputes” in the comments below. In her 2024 article, “Racism, misogyny, lies: how did X become so full of hatred? And is it ethical to keep using it?” Zoe Williams acknowledges the downfall of this platform; “[users] get paid, indirectly through advertising, for engagement. Even that is a bit murky, since it’s described as “revenue sharing”, but you don’t get to see which ads’ revenues were shared with you, so can’t measure revenue-per-impression. Is X sharing it 50/50? Or 10/90? Are they actually paying you to generate hatred?” This age of digital hate is undeniable and allowing this sort of interaction takes a toll on the human spirit as the exposure to this negativity is in no way constructive in any way. October 13, The Darknet The presence of the darknet and the more advanced aspect of the internet allows for some unique dynamics that would otherwise not exist. With the ever-rising popularity of digital currencies, cryptos, and meme coins, new possibilities for investing, and unfortunately manipulation, are beginning to become more common. The darknet, by definition, is any aspect of the internet that is unable to be indexed by a normal browser and requires specialized software or browsers , such as Tor, in order to ensure anonymity.

Digital trading or currency such as cryptos, or more recently meme coins, has been a hot topic for the last decade. The investing opportunities are impressive and continue to scale by the day. The booming popularity of digital currencies has led many in power to engage in a strategy called “Pump and dump”. In this situation, a person of influence will create a “Meme coin” and promote its release to their following. After the release, a great investment is made, and the prices rapidly rise. At this point all investments are pulled and the prices crash leaving the creator and their inner circle with a boatload of profit. In 2024, at the start of his presidency, Donald Trump utilized this strategy to profit billions. In Patrick Thompson’s 2025 recount of recent events in crypto, he states the following, “the token’s price soared after going live… Within hours, it skyrocketed to an all-time high of $72.62. However, it appears that Trump later tried to distance himself from the token, stating he didn’t know much about it beyond its launch and that he “heard it was very successful.””(Thompson, 2025). This is far from the only case of this happening as many meme coins have come and gone with some matching or even surpassing this outrageous success. This kind of market manipulation is rather ridiculous and is surely a darker aspect of this market. Making it so simple for the rich to get richer while hanging out many investors to dry equates this to insider trading in the stock market. It is just obscene to say the least.

Having a browser that allows for rock solid encryption with impressive bypassing abilities seems like a far-fetched dream. However, The Onion Router (TOR) has been developing and expanding these capabilities since 2003. This server has a crucial role in the darknet as its ability to scramble and encrypt make it a go-to for journalists, whistleblowers, and activists. TOR can create and host hidden services while resisting censorship, making it a very powerful server for those who need the encryption and anonymity.

The Darknet, at its face value, can seem harmless. However, below the surface, it presents great potential. It’s capabilities are impressive and in many cases are able to be abused, leading to undesirable outcomes. The countless encryptions and layers can allow for information transfer to happen under the table with no records. Similarly, the rigged nature of cryptos makes for some very sketchy investment opportunities that end up benefiting the creator exclusively. Overall, the darknet is not to be taken lightly, as its capabilities are impressive and for this reason must be monitored.

Best wishes, Josh Gill

Response page https://hackmd.io/TifCafA6QfSBz_acq8rHNg

Response 5 - Shaped

Lady Gaga once said “You were born this way, now all you have to do is hold your head up and you’ll go far because that’s all you have to do is just love yourself and you’re set”, but how easy is it to really abide by these words when there are constantly internet trolls telling you otherwise? While it is easy to put on a brave face an pretend it doesn’t bother you on the internet, or in the presence of others, there’s a truth behind the facade.

While digital communication allows us to talk to loved ones or stay in contact with friends that live far away, it also provides easy platforms for haters to find their victims and loose their sense of mindfulness. While “Online comment is reactive and short”, the effects can often be long lasting. Personally, I have only received one hate comment on an Instagram post of mine 3 years ago. While there are way more extreme cases, I still haven’t forgotten how johnstaker64 told me “that blonde hair looks brassy darling”. Like stated in the chapter, statements like these make teens question “Am I ugly?” or in my case; does my hair really look that brassy?

While hate comments have an negative impact on the self-esteem of adolescence, craving validation from positive reinforcement online becomes even stronger. Checking social media to see how many people viewed your story, and who liked it has become a part of day to day life for many. And while some some may consider this a form narcissism, I believe it is just the result of social media being one of the leading forces in everyone’s lifestyles. Ultimately, the overall consensus I have came to is that social media has reshaped modern self-perception, highlighting its effects on our confidence and mental health.

Reading Response link: https://hackmd.io/3Z_AZ5EpTsy0bogDNvOJwQ

Markdown for todays reading:

Shaped

Oct 23

How does digital communication affect our ability to be mindful? How does it affect self-esteem; is it making us narcissistic?

I know I care about other people see me on Instagram. I feel vain and self obsessed even admitting that, but it’s true. When I post, I most look forward to the comments I receive. I think how many will I get, who will comment, what they’ll say. It’s ridiculous and I feel completely simple-minded writing this down but it’s a rush when I post and get comments. I also compare comments, followers, and feed, to complete strangers online, internally giving either myself or them more value. Digital communication truly shapes how mindful we are and how we feel about ourselves. Self-esteem is either scarce, cause we’re insecure, or over abundant, cause we’re narcissists (Reagle Chapter 6). However, I think even those that are over-abundantly sharing themselves, seek validation online because they also are insecure. Platforms for Facebook, Instagram, and Formspring, let people connect and express themselves, but also propels comparing each other. We begin to base our self-worth on attention and validation. It doesn’t necessarily make everyone narcissistic, but makes us overly focused on how we appear to others instead of how we actually feel. Being mindful online means recognizing when we’re preforming for others and when we’re being real, which does not come easy in a world of comments and likes.

Reagle, J. M., Jr. (2015). Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. MIT Press.

Hello,

Attached are my homepage and the reading response for October 24th.

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/@Zl89uXlCQ7mhk5UPRPU93Q/HydS-eC5xx

Reading Response (Set 1) Page: https://hackmd.io/@Zl89uXlCQ7mhk5UPRPU93Q/B1DTUeR5xl

Markdown of Oct 24th Reading Response:

Oct 24 Fri - Shaped

Joseph Reagle, 2015, “Shaped: Aw shit, I have to update my Twitter,” Reading the Comments, ch=6.

Do you ever feel that the way you put yourself online affects how you see yourself more than you think? In Chapter 6 of Shaped: “Aw Shit, I Have to Update My Twitter,” Joseph Reagle analyzes how online comments and social media can shape people’s self-esteem, attention, and sense of identity. He begins with the story of Jamey Rodemeyer, who exemplified how the internet can be both supportive and discouraging. Jamey, who participated in the It Gets Better Project, received support in coming out about his sexuality, but ended his life due to the harassment he received from Formspring. Reagle connects the idea of self-presentation from Erving Goffman that people curate how they are seen through online profiles. Studies show that people who can control their self-image by editing their online profiles feel more confident. The chapter notes that constant exposure to stereotypical images can hurt someone’s self-perception and can inspire people to do cosmetic surgery. Reagle uses the example of cosmetic surgery in South Korea and how it can be exhausting when you constantly compare yourself to perfection. Lastly, he speaks on concerns about a “narcissism epidemic” where psychologists Twenge and Campbell argued that indulgent parenting and social media can define our self-worth and make us lose ourselves. This connects to “quantification,” where websites like Klout can turn into an obsessive numbers game rather than social interactions. To combat these issues, Reagle suggests that we need new forms of awareness and discipline. He uses Howard Rheingold’s Net Smart to propose strategies for maintaining focus and self-esteem in a world surrounded by comparing and commenting.

Digital communication influences mindfulness and self-esteem. Reagle’s points about social comparisons and how they can make us feel negatively connect with how difficult it is to maintain mindfulness. Platforms with comments and likes prompt us to react quickly instead of reflecting deeply and logically. Our self-esteem can decrease if we see a post that makes us feel bad about ourselves. It does make us a little narcissistic because we become so obsessed with reaching a standard and how something so small can feel so huge.

Best, Tammi

Professor Reagle,

Here is the URL to my five reading responses: Reading Responses Set 1

Connor Matulonis

Hello, Here is my reading response for today https://hackmd.io/@sinempeker/H15ms2rilx Sincerely, Sinem Peker Oct 24- Shaping When people get asked the question “What defines your self- worth” their social media followers or the amount of likes they get on a post usually doesn’t come to mind, but that actually might be a big part of it. The paper opens with comedian Louis C.K.’s joke where he is poking fun at people who say stuff like “Aw shit, I have to update my twitter.” like its a big priority, Reagle introduces the question of hoe social media (especially comment sections) influence how people feel about themselves. Social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Twitter cause social comparison. People turn to their likes, replies and follower count as social approval which can either affirm or distort a persons sense of self. We had discussed Multitasking on our prior classes, this issue causes distraction and shortened attention spam because people try to multitask between notifications and comments and real life information and communication. Reagle also talks about the quantification of social life where a person’s self worth and connections is reduced to numbers. the more validation people seek online the more they associate online visibility with self- worth

Hello, here is the URL for my reading responses https://hackmd.io/@sinempeker/H15ms2rilx Sincerely, Sinem Peker

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/XXijy5XpQl-o48Kqt-_-ew Reading responses: https://hackmd.io/_aFQ700NRn2F5igm1Jog6Q

Reading Response 5

There is a rising trend where social media sets an entirely unrealistic beauty standard. People post pictures of what seems like perfect bodies, perfect faces, expensive vehicles and jewelry. Behind the scenes is a ton of dieting, genetics, hard work, makeup, very fancy lighting, and honestly a lot of editing. However, a lot of people don’t know that, hence the problem of modern beauty standards. As written in Shaped, “self-esteem is understood as the self-evaluation of one’s worth,” and people’s evaluating criteria unfortunately is based off of social media influencers and social media models.

It is also written that “many people have cringed at seeing unflattering pictures of themselves in someone else’s album.” This is quite relatable for me, as not only am I camera shy, but I also do not look great in pictures. And given my friends’ natures, they will look for opportunities to take the most awful and hilarious bad pictures. Although I can’t control my presentation in an album, I am able to get a laugh out of it. Are social media beauty standards causing people to feel worse about themselves? Were teenagers and young adults happier about themselves before social media became such a dominant presence in our lives?

Reading Response Set #1: https://hackmd.io/xQEImHivSgyqaG-FUwuPAA

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/@loppsan/ByKLCi25ge Reading Respone set 1: https://hackmd.io/@loppsan/SybI97Liex

Reading Response 5 (out of 5) - Online Addiction

Silence is a failure online. A post with no likes or comments feels like it never happened. Louis C.K. once joked “we’ve all basically given ourselves data entry jobs”, and that line captures what social media has done to self-expression, it has turned into self-tracking. Every post, like, or reply becomes a measuring tool of our social worth. In this response, I will explore how social media makes us measure our “success” through engagement metrics and how deeply this affects our self-esteem.

Online comment culture shapes identity, attention and emotion by turning everyday interactions into measurable feedback. Research shows that looking at your own facebook profile can boost self-esteem for a short moment, but comparing yourself to others usually makes it worse. The story of Jamey from the It Gets Better project shows this double side of online feedback, it can both comfort and hurt someone. The rise of “quantification” systems like follower counts, Klout scores, or even dating app matches, pushes us to constantly evaluate our worth in numbers. Reagle ends by asking whether this culture changes who we are or if we can find healthier ways to exist online.

I keep thinking about how this dependence on validation might not be completely new, just amplified. People have always wanted approval, but now it’s visible, trackable, and constant. This constant chase for validation also distorts how we experience real attention and achievement. We can take major steps in life, getting a new job, getting engaged, or having a baby, yet still feel invisible if we don’t post about it, as if it never really happened. And when we do share those milestones and get only a handful of likes, it’s hard not to wonder: why? Instead of focusing on what we’ve actually accomplished, we start measuring the value of our experiences by how others react online. I hate to admit it, but whenever I’m going to post something on Instagram, I time it for when I know I’ll be able to often check who’s liked or commented on it. Reaching for my phone to refresh notifications has become almost automatic. It reminds me of the Swedish book Skärmhjärnan (The Screen Brain) by psychiatrist Anders Hansen, where he explains how these apps hijack our brain’s reward system, making us crave each notification. I know it’s true, and I know exactly what these apps do to my brain, yet I still fall for it every time.

Social media hasn’t just digitized our relationships, it has turned them into data. Maybe real digital literacy today means learning how to separate self-worth from the numbers on our screens.

Dear Dr. Reagle,

I hope this message finds you well.

Reading responses set #1 page: https://hackmd.io/@janetwu20051119/H1kW-lMixe

Markdown:

Oct 24 Fri - Shape

“I’m beautiful in my way ’cause God makes no mistakes” This lyric from Lady Gaga’s song, Born This Way show up as a light for self-acceptance encouraging many LGBTQ youth to embrace the way they are in this digital communication age. Reagle (2019) described how Jamey share his hope and mental process of accepting his sexuality in the It Gets Better project on YouTube but confront with cruel anonymous comments on Formspring. Through Jamey’s story, Reagle embodies how digital communication can be healing when Jamey “spoke of the difficulties,” yet harming when “the harassing comments that followed” appeared at the same time. As Reagle observes, what begins in social platforms is “not a simple broadcast,”; we “craft a sense of ourselves that is subject to the comment and approval of others,” and those reactions “come to define how people see themselves.” Most importantly, it is how one does not easily let digital communication affect one’s ability to be mindful or lower self-esteem.

While reading about how online user try to seek affirmation of their identity through performing post that seem “authentic,” it reminds me of Evita March’s (2023) article, “What Kinds of people ‘catfish’?”, which people who fake their online identities tend to exhibit traits of the dark tetrad, including narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. These two readings both exemplify how people build their self-esteem on others’ reactions. Indeed, back in 2022, Instagram released a function called “liking stories,” which differs from liking a post. Instead, the like is valued by viewers’ reaction and lead people to become more performative. Returning to the topic, it is never actions like deleting accounts but pausing and taking a breath to adjust the intention. To apply a philosophy that I have internalized with my life lessons since high school, ” What matters in this life is to live by your own philosophy of life. Otherwise, without a standpoint or a reason for why you do things, you will end up chasing the surface of the world instead of for yourself and what you are passionate about.

Sincerely, Yun-Chen (Janet) Wu

Hi Professor Reagle, Here is the link to my Reading Responses Set #1: https://hackmd.io/@JamesGordon0724/ryKyXQxAgg I’ve included all five responses as required,and the markdown text is also pasted below. Thank you. Best Yanjun You