Categories
Post

Internet Cookies and what the issues are

Source : Google images

Earlier in the year we learned about internet cookies within the websites we all use and what those actually do with the information we provide with them. Interestingly enough amongst the 4.33 billion people on the internet a whole lot of them have no idea what cookies are. I was part of that statistic until I learned about them in this class. The process begins when a user hits “ok” or “agree to terms” or “yes” after the notification pops up like in the images shown above the user is giving up so much more knowledge to that website than they realize. Those cookies act as a part of the website’s brain learning about your activity and behavior while you are on their website. This allows them to produce specific ads and sponsors tailored to the users likes without them realizing that it is happening. Not only this but it also records all the data you produce by being on their website and agreeing to the use of cookies. This could consist of the duration you spent on the website, what you looked out, every single click you make is archived in a database somewhere just because you clicked “ok”. The point I am trying to make about cookies is that if you view the images above you see the various presentations of how websites display the option to say yes or no to cookies on their websites. The first one is very specific describing somewhat how cookies work to the user and showing detailed results under each option for clarity. Notice the images below are not similar because they display vague short questions that are presented so lightly with no indication of purpose to the less enlightened. This skeevy way to make users view it as a pop up to just agree to and not actually realize what they are agreeing to is not an honest way to run a website or company. The problem with cookies isn’t very present amongst our community compared to other media issues like free speech and behavioral limitations. However the issue with cookies is the violation of privacy and the unknown of this knowledge to the common public. This image should resonate with viewers to show how hidden most knowledge is on the internet. I chose this image because after learning this I thought about it the most when going on different websites and saw the prompt to agree or disagree. I find this topic very interesting as it is essentially a user tracker on everyone that visits a certain website which to me is absurd.

Hotspotshield. “What Are Internet Cookies, Learn About Internet Cookies: Hotspot Shield.” What Are Internet Cookies, Learn About Internet Cookies | Hotspot Shield, http://www.hotspotshield.com/resources/what-are-internet-cookies/.

Categories
Post

CDA 230 and Neutral Platforms

Many instances of different social media platforms excusing vulgar content shared within the realm of global users has been happening for a while. The legislation responsible for this being able to happen is within Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, This act protects websites and companies from being sued for media content that goes against its official user guidelines. However because there are so much more heinous acts on social media than there are moderators that are hired by companies to stop these instances it makes the solution unclear. This act is essential for the networks that we all know and use to be able to continue functioning without being claimed liable for any infractions that happen within their platforms. One side argues the foundation of this law enables companies to ignore reported instances that do put users in danger as described by critics on The Verge’s article on the Communications Decency Act. Examples of a large company ignoring reported infractions and violations of a users rights could go on forever. However one in particular I am going to surround my discussion about is the Anthony Vs. Yahoo case in 2006. A user of an online dating service was filing a lawsuit with the company because he was bombarded with fake accounts and other “defunct profiles” that basically just made the user have to keep resubscribing more and more. This specific case section 230 did not apply and the case was won by Mr. Anthony. This is not always the case however most of the time CDA 230 does apply because the corporate lawyers these companies hire are so good. In T. Gilespes chapter called the Myth of a neutral platform is because she states when talking about the monitoring of users on various platforms as being financially undesriable and unbearable. Thus meaning it is seemingly impossible to distribute enough user moderators into these websites and companies to bring justice to each of the continually issues of rule infractions especially that fall into legal categories. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-some-people-want-to-change-it.html

“Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc., 421 F.Supp.2d 1257 (N.D.Cal. 2006).” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 9 Nov. 2012, http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/anthony-v-yahoo-inc.

Cope, Sophia, et al. “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230.

Newton, Casey. “Everything You Need to Know about Section 230.” The Verge, The Verge, 3 Mar. 2020, http://www.theverge.com/2020/3/3/21144678/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation.

Categories
Post

What does it mean to watch TV?

Picture from: https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-32LF221U19-32-inch-720p-Smart/dp/B07FPR6FMJ

The picture I chose to use was a picture of TV. I chose a picture of a TV because it reminded me of one of our first lectures. In the lecture, we had a class wide discussion of what watching TV means to you. Although it seemed like a fairly easy question, it had many answers. In my opinion, watching tv meant to actually turn the TV on, turn your cable provider on, and flip through channels and find a channel that entertained you. This lecture proved to me that watching TV meant many different things today in media society. Watching TV could mean, watching cable provider TV, watching Netflix, Youtube TV, Hulu, or HBO Go. It has shown that there are so many different media streaming platforms and to watch TV could mean many different things. Today, it is unclear when it means to watch TV. It has taught that media streaming platforms are being revolutionized and are evolving. Growing up as a kid, Netflix was not an online streaming service and to use Netflix, movies were sent by CD’s in the mail. Youtube TV, HBO Go, and Hulu, were not a thing growing up, so watching TV meant one thing, to turn the TV on and flip through the channels. I hope others can learn from seeing this is that the evolution of watching TV, TV, and media streaming platforms have evolved since I was a kid. To watch TV can mean a bunch of different things. Therefore, by saying, I’m going to watch TV is insufficient and that you have to be more specific because of many different media streaming platforms such as Netflix, Youtube TV, Hulu, and HBO Go.

Categories
Post

Media Analysis

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haggadot.com%2Fclip%2Fmale-gaze&psig=AOvVaw2JqtWXTjdZoUNuhhNssr6k&ust=1588443718922000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJiB_I-kk-kCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAv

We have had a lot of conversations throughout the first part of this semester and all of them were very interesting and useful for everyday life.  Since we are only allowed to choose one take away from this course, I decided to find an image about ‘Male Gaze’.  My biggest take away from this class was when we had our conversation about gaze.  In this image it is showing two men looking at a woman from behind and then one man standing in front of her, which I assume is also gazing at her.  In this image there is a caption explaining that whoever is the one gazing is a much more superior person than the person who is being gazed at.  After selecting the image I thought about how this can mean something to me and when I came to a conclusion, I decided that it means, gazing is occurring all the time throughout the world.  The image I chose is a great example of what actually happens when there is a group of men together in public and a pretty woman walks by. Men have a tendency to stare at woman if they have, what they think, a good looking body. I hope that after posting this blog others can take away from this that it is not okay to be the superior person because in my opinion I believe that it is invading someone’s privacy even if there is no contact involved. Everyone keep their eyes to themselves!

Categories
Post

Social Media Platforms Safe?

One example that excuses social media companies from liability towards people who post horrific captions and/or comments on their platform is the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  This act, which was passed in 1996, states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.  This means, if someone decided to log on to a social media platform to post something hurtful towards another person then the company, where the post was posted, is not liable for whatever that person chose to say.  Section 230 also states that companies are able to remove posts that they deem are necessary to remove, but they are not required to take down any posts that have hatred involved because the company will be protected by Section 230, stating they are not liable to any of those posts. 

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Gilespie’s title, “The Myth of a Neutral Platform”, refers to a myth that social media platforms are this “safe space” where no matter how you look, talk, or what your views are, you will be accepted on social media.  Why is this a myth?  It is a myth because of the amount of illegal stuff people are able to get away with through social media, for example, harassment towards others.  “It can be hard to deal with or pick out negative ads because authors are often protected under “freedom of speech”” (Dan and Patrick).  Even though we as a world have made massive strides in social media advancements, there are also many more rules and regulations that still need to be put in place so that we can have a cleaner and safer internet for everybody. 

Categories
Post

Trolling and Flooding Today

The First Amendment has allowed individuals throughout the United States to speak their mind and have their voice be heard. Yet, over the years there’s been manipulation through this. The easy accessibility to the internet has created a platform for people to use techniques of trolling and flooding to influence the way we view different topics. First, a troll on the internet is someone who basically responds/comments to something in a confrontational way in order to upset others or get an emotional response. In “Is The First Amendment Obsolete” by Tim Wu, he describes trolling as a technique that will “seek to humiliate,harass, discourage, and even destroy targeted speakers using personal threats, embarrassment, and ruining of their reputations”.

A great example of this today is Wendy’s fast food restaurant trolling other fast food places. Fast food restaurants love to take shots at each other through social media(especially twitter) and this was just another example. Wendys is know for trolling other resturaunts, and Burger King called them out for it. Burger King posted a picture on twitter of the King(mascot) standing outside of a Wendys with a sign saying “Don’t burn people just because you can’t flame-grill”.

Wendy’s responded by saying “Honestly expected better, but you’re probably pretty use to hearing that”.

For more on Wendys vs BK: https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/burger-king-tries-to-troll-wendys-doesnt-work

Secondly, Wu describes the technique of “flooding” as mainly focused on “winning the war for attention” and that they’ll be able to produce enough information to “drown out the disfavored speech”. By doing this, the main goal of the strategy is to “distract the public and change the subject”. President Trump displays a prime example of this through his own social media activity during the presidential election. Trump’s twitter became a central part of his campaign as not only did he “flood” information about himself/campaign but also negative outlooks on his opponents. By doing this he was able to take the attention away from his opponents speech’s and become more of the center piece within the election.

Lastly, I do believe there should be some limitations or legal framework set in place against the use of trolling/flooding. We’re at a time in society where social media has an incredible impact on our daily lives and how we shape our own reality. With the creation of fake news or misinformation, it could cause mass confusion and isn’t beneficial towards people today.

Categories
Post

Who’s Accountable ?

Although the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was, “short-lived” as the Supreme Court viewed it unconstitutional. The Safe Harbor Amendment also known as Section 230 of the CDA still survives to this day and provides a protection for social media companies that is not afforded in many other industries. Section 230 is unique in that it not only excuses social media companies from being held accountable but it also grants them the right to monitor content on their platforms while still being protected from content that may promote hatred and violence. A perfect example of the application of the Safe Harbor Amendment is seen in the terms of service agreement when, “social media platforms claim “the right but not the responsibility” to remove users and delete comments.” (Gilespie, 31).  

Gilespie’s title “The Myth of a Neutral Platform” refers to the myth that social media is this magical place where individuals will be treated equally no matter their views/race/ethnicity. The reason this is a myth is because there is little to no consequence for individuals who attack/harass others on social media. An example of this is seen on twitter, “every day there are thousands of people attacked with no punishments.” (Patrick and Dan). 

Although social media may never truly become a neutral platform, the laws surrounding social media need to evolve in order to protect and promote a more inclusive society. Just as businesses are constantly evolving in order to stay relevant the laws regulating these companies also need to evolve. As Winston Churchill once said, “To improve is to change, to perfect is to change often.”

Sources

Twitter.com 

Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, 2018

Categories
Post

Internet Equality

The internet and various social media platforms can truly be a blessing and a curse. Are platforms such as YouTube and Facebook fair? The answer is no, and with U.S legislations assisting these tech companies, justice is hardly brought forward. Section 230 which trickles down from the Communications Decency Act of 1996 serves to essentially protect social media companies from what is being posted on their platform. Section 230 allows social media companies to not be liable for what is posted on their site in accordance with the First Amendment (freedom of speech). However, Section 230 also allows these social media companies to moderate their content and take certain posts down if they see it is necessary. So essentially, hateful posts can be taken down at the companies discretion, but if it isn’t, the company cannot be held liable for hateful content that is kept present on their platform. Seems a little unfair right? This often allows hateful groups to spread their message on these platforms i.e white supremacists recruiting on Youtube.

T Gilepsie’s book chapter is called “The Myth of a Neutral Platform”. This title refers to the inequality of social media and how the First Amendment can be compromised. For example, YouTube has an algorithm that is put in place to demonetize certain videos that have been flagged or disliked. Minorities often suffer from this algorithm such as the LGBTQ communities. The LGBTQ videos on YouTube often do not get the attention or powerful voice that other content creators are given because of hateful audiences disliking their videos. By disliking their videos, content produced by LGBTQ is subject to being demonetized. While the LGBTQ community may still have a voice on YouTubes platform, their voice is not heard at the magnitude of other content creators and this is exactly what T. Gilepsie means by social media not being a “neutral” platform.

Categories
Post

Are Social Media Platforms a safe place?

One example of U.S legislation which excuses social media companies from liability towards instances of communication that promote hatred and violence today is the Safe Harbor Provisions. In the Safe Harbor Provisions, section 230 was not designed with social media platforms in mind. Hate speech, racial violence, and terrorist organizations use social media platforms to spread their messages. According to Tarleton Gillespie,

“The U.S Congress crafted its first legislative response to online pornography, the Communications Decency Act, as part of a massive telecommunications bill. Passed in 1996 the CDA made it a criminal act, punishable by fines and/or up to two years in prison, to display or distribute ‘obscene or indecent’ material online to anyone under age eighteen. During the legislation process, the House of Representatives added a bipartisan amendment drafted by Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden, largely as a response to early lawsuits trying to hold ISPs and web-hosting services liable for defamation by their users. It carved a safe harbor for ISPs, search engines, and ‘interactive computer services providers’: so long as they only provided access to the Internet or conveyed information, they could not be liable for the content of that speech” (Gillespie 30). Although the CDA had seemed to reach a bill, it was deemed unconstitutional because “the court ruled that CDA overreached in terms of what content was prohibited, it extended its protection of minors to the content available to adults, and it did not deal with the question of whose community norms should be the barometer for a network that spans communities” (Gillespie 30). What is important is that the safe harbor amendment was unchanged. The safe harbor, also known as Section 230 of the U.S telecommunication law, has two parts. Gillespie explains that “The first part ensures that intermediaries that merely provide access to the Internet or other network services cannot be held liable for the speech of their users; these intermediaries will not be considered ‘publishers’ of their users’ content in the legal sense. . . The second, less familiar part adds a twist. If an intermediary does police what its users say or do, it does not lose its safe harbor protection by doing so” (Gillespie 30).

Image from: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Image from Canvas

Tarleton Gillespie’s book chapter called “The Myth of a Neutral Platform” refers to the social media platform being a place for users to be safe from hate speech, racial violence or terroist organizations, but that is not the cause because of freedom of speech. According to Dan and Patrick’s presentation, there is this “Media Interference”. This media interference “makes it very easy to put out an ad that promotes hate speech or promotes your political views. It can be hard to deal with or pick out negative ads because authors are often protected under ‘freedom of speech’” (Patrick, Dan). In addition, according to Dan and Patrick’s presentation, “Many groups of people are attacked every day on Twitter and Twitter is notoriously bad at monitoring it. Women, LGBTQ+, racial and ethnic minorities, and participants of subcultures are largely the groups that are targeted” (Patrick, Dan).

Sources:

Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, 2018.

http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Categories
Post

Freedom of Expressing Hate Speech

Over the course of the last few years we have seen many heinous acts of violence and hate that have been exacerbated through the use of social media. For months Facebook told the public that they could not have influenced the 2016 election to then later say that 126 million Americans had received or viewed Russian politically charged advertisements. This is only one instance of social media influencing and affecting real world situations. In a CBS This Morning report, one of the anchors says, “Military personnel in Myanmar, used facebook as a tool for ethnic cleansing. This is not just spreading fake news.” (CBS This Morning, via Hasan Minhaj) These big tech companies all use the same excuse when defending themselves citing that “freedom of expression is one of our core values.” (Facebook Global Policy Management Head via Hasan Minhaj) These companies do not realize that there is a difference between freedom of expression/speech and speech that will lead to the discrimination, or even violence towards specific groups of people. The exact amendment deals with unlawful censorship, but unlawful refers to hate speech and abuse of others so protecting those who commit these heinous acts is basically corroborating in the murders of these people. This even goes back to last weeks article By Tim Wu who explains, “The First Amendment was brought to life in a period, the twentieth century, when the political speech environment was markedly differently than today’s. With respect to any given issue, speech was scarce, and limited to a few newspapers, pamphlets or magazines. The law was embedded, therefore, with the presumption that the greatest threat to free speech was direct punishment of speakers by government” (Tim Wu, p.1)

For more information on the Myanmar cleansing go to: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-thousands-rohingya-muslims-flee-myanmar-ethnic-cleansing-bangladesh/

The title of the chapter “The Myth of a Neutral Platform” refers to the idea of a platform that has no bias, no political agenda, and in some forms, unregulated as well. The reason this is a myth is because there is no possible way for the internet to be unbiased, because the people on that platform are biased and especially the people running the platform are biased. Gilespie says, “The more pressing worry about BBSs, website-hosting services, and ISPs was not that they would restrict speech on their own accord but that they could be obligated to impose restrictions on behalf of courts or governments, or pressured to impose them to avoid liability for the content they made available.” (Gilespie, p.27) There is no unbiased, unregulated platform because the people who run the platforms are liable and may face consequences for the things posted. For example what is happening with facebook after the 2016 elections and the ads that they let run to americans that changed the presidential race.

Categories
Post

Trolling and Flooding

Internet trolling is occuring everywhere and is always making an impact on a certain group of people that the trolls may be trying to attack.  According to Tim Wu from the reading he describes trolling as “the speech control techniques, which seek to humiliate, harass, discourage, and even destroy targeted users with personal threats, embarrassment, and ruining of their reputations.” (Wu 560)  One example of trolling that I found was when someone created fake scam emails that were sent out to people requesting for their personal information.  The scam was created so that the hackers can get your logon banking details, or access to an account that contains credit card information.  Below is an example of what the scam email looked like that was sent out for information.

https://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-examples.html

According to Tim Wu flooding the internet is described as, “these techniques depend on the idea of generating a sufficient volume of information to drown out disfavored speech, or at least dissorting the sense of how much support any given view has.” (Wu 565)  Flooding is something that trolls are going to do so that they can make a certain group not think about a topic, by “flooding” them with other news.  One example that I found was about the Russian trolls flooding the United states with news that they know will cause tension between us.

How To Spot Russian Trolls Online Ahead Of 2020 Election | Here & Now
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/11/27/russian-trolls-2020-election

Finally, after reading over the slides I clicked on the links that lead me to the rules of twitter and facebook about what can and cannot be shared within the sites.  I agree with how the two platforms are handling the internet trolling situation because since they put these regulations and safety rules in it restricts people who are trying to throw shade at a certain target.  It is obvious to completely stop all of this at once because there will always be someone in the world who is a step ahead of everyone, but I do believe what the slides said is the best option moving forward.  

Categories
Post

Is trolling or flooding used in the US?

According to Tim Wu, online trolling, “seeks to humiliate, harass, discourage, and even destroy target speakers using personal threats, embarrassment, and ruining of their reputations” (Wu 560). 1 example of a trolling technique used by the media in the United States was when IHOP tried to change their acronym from IHOP to IHOB. The famous pancake house took this mysterious change to Twitter which had people wondering and guessing what the “B” meant and why the pancake house had changed their acronym. In the end, after changing the acronym from IHOP to IHOB, the company resorted back to the original name, IHOP.

Tim Wu explains that the flooding technique is considered a, “second set of techniques that is focused on control distribution and propagation, or on the total mixture of what people see and hear. In this sense, they are more clearly targeted at winning the war for attention. At bottom, these techniques depend on the idea of generating a sufficient volume of information to drown out disfavored speech, or at least distorting the sense of how much support any given view has. Whatever form they take, these techniques clearly qualify as listener-targeted speech control” (Wu 565). 1 specific example of the flooding technique used by the media in the United States is when Donald Trump was running for president of the United States. He wanted to control the flow of propaganda of his campaign on social media. He would try to win the election by distributing his campaign and exposing his opponent on social media. Altogether, Trump specifically used this idea of outputting a large volume of his campaign to drown out his opponents campaign views.

I disagree that in the United States the spread of communication techniques such as trolling and flooding should be met with new legal frameworks because both of these techniques restrict the public and society from knowing the full truth. When I say full truth, I interconnect the situation about Vietnam and how it was a coincidence that the number of COVID-19 cases were well below those seen in some other Asian countries. The restriction of the truth has hurt the public to know the severity of the outbreak of COVID-19. On the other hand I also agree that in the United States the spread of communication techniques such as trolling and flooding should be met with new legal frameworks because politicians and public figures use it for an advantage in competitions. It is unknown whether Donald Trump would have won or lost without his control of his campaign on Twitter, but it sure did help.

Sources: https://www.salon.com/2019/11/09/social-media-amplifying-trumps-rants-and-disinformation-more-than-ever-can-society-protect-itself_partner/

https://mashable.com/article/best-brand-trolls-social-media/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vietnam-security/vietnam-introduces-fake-news-fines-for-coronavirus-misinformation-idUSKCN21X0EB

Categories
Post

Freedom of Speech

Trolling is often regarded as funny comical jargain of the internet for people that don’t know how to spend their time properly. However when looked at more in depth you can see how horrible some trolling on the internet can be much more harmful than given credit to be. Death threats, racism, sexism, homophobic remarks all are included in some of the content I am talking about. Free speech is given to the american citizen and gives us the right to say what we want without restraints or censorship. Allowing this to apply on the internet allows people to hide behind screens and distribute negativty in the world with hateful comments and harmful trolling. Not all trolling is like this but they are all at different certain degrees of degrading to whoever the target of the troll is. Seen in the link below about an incident in california where they actually had to take away the first ammendment right when it came to social media.

https://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/?playlistVideoId=5306741468001

Here is a chart explaining the number of posts in which different things were being targeted with trolling and internet flooding. As Wu’s talked of the weaponization of speech I think it shows how evident that statement is in society especially in the past decade.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/01/12/in-germany-online-hate-speech-has-real-world-consequences

A good example of what a troll is on the internet is googles definition of someone initiating an argument consisting of the goal to create chaos and adverse reaction from the victim and audience essentially. Shown in the youtube video below explains the various ways Trolls behave on the internet and the consequences it has with media and society.

Categories
Post

Is Freedom of Speech Harmful ?

For all the wonders freedom of speech provides it is a double edged sword. Two examples of freedom of speech being used in a harmful fashion are “trolling” and “flooding.” Tim Wu defines trolling as, “the speech-control techniques, which seek to humiliate, harass, discourage, and even destroy targeted speakers using personal threats, embarrassment, and ruining of their reputations.” (Wu, 560). In a world where it takes a lifetime to build a reputation trolling poses a serious threat, as it can undo someone’s life work. There are constantly new examples of trolling in the United States occurring, a recent one is President Trump retweeting an image, with the purpose of harming his rival in the upcoming election, Demcratic nominee Joe Bidden.  

Flooding is another negative example of freedom of speech. Wu defines flooding as reverse censorship, “techniques targeted at winning the war for attention. these techniques depend on the idea of generating a sufficient volume of information to drown out disfavored speech.” (Wu, 565). Wu includes an excerpt from  King, Pan, and Roberts stating, “the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to distract the public and change the subject.” (Wu, 566). In the United States we are constantly being flooded with information. The perfect example of this is social media, “Researchers have estimated that Twitter has as many as 48 million bot users.” (Wu, 567). These bots can easily influence viewers’ opinions especially when you take into consideration that many individuals are extremely busy and take what they see at face value. 

After gaining a greater understanding of the situation, I believe there should be a legal framework in place, to deal with communication techniques. I believe this because misinformation can cause great harm to not only individuals but the society as a whole. 

Sources:

Tim Wu, Is the First Amendment Obsolete ?

Categories
Post

Very…Fake…News

The First Amendment was established in 1791 and has since been a pillar of freedom that comes with living in our country. But its complicated.. and with the innovation of technology and various media outlets, the question has to be asked–Should the First Amendment be regulated for our own good? Tim Wu discussed his research on this topic in “Is the First Amendment Obsolete”. Wu explains how the acts of “trolling” and “flooding” are essentially disseminating false information and manipulating people. Wu goes on to say..

“Among emerging threats are the speech-control techniques linked to
online trolling, which seek to humiliate, harass, discourage, and even destroy targeted speakers using personal threats, embarrassment, and ruining of their reputations.”
-pg 560

From my own media usage in the United States, I instantly think about President Trump and his usage of “trolling” to tarnish the reputation of his competitors. I immediately think of how President Trump dubbed Marco Rubio “Little Marco” in reference to his small stature. Although maybe perceived as harmless, this nickname stuck and to some viewers made “Little Marco” seem weak and not to be taken seriously.

Donald Trump deletes tweets after Marco Rubio goes after Twitter ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466762/Donald-Trump-deletes-tweets-Marco-Rubio-goes-multiple-misspellings-rally-Friday.html

“Flooding” is another term used by Wu which describes the alternative approach to censorship which serves as “listener targeted speech control”. Flooding is thought to be more effective than censorship because the arrest or attention given to those that are censored may only bring more attention to their words. An example of flooding in my experience has been the mass generation of “bot” related posts. The people that are using these bots on our social media have influence on how they spread their ideologies and can have massive influence on users who do not seek additional information.

Moving forward, I believe that our Government should regulate use of flooding and trolling in our society. I believe that freedom of speech should be preserved but that blatant creation of fake news that can cause hysteria or worse should be illegal and have consequences.