User:DrPronoun/sandbox

Respond to peer reviews
SeenaBerkeley Peer Review:

I appreciate the concern about relevancy in the self-radicalization section, so I'll emphasize what self-radicalization is more and add case studies in the problem. More comments into big-tech is also something information I could add as a subsection to regard the importance of the issue.

Gobears18 Peer Review:

Adding images is a top priority to depict Algorithmic Radicalization. I also think it might be relevant to add a possible chart to show how an echo chamber works as well. Besides diagrams, we can add images to show how self-radicalizations work.

SealSquared Peer Review:

I like your idea of finding a case study to connect with algorithmic radicalization. An "impact" section would go very well with the idea of self-radicalization section by proving its destructiveness in society with case studies.

Wafflehouse777 Peer Review:

I agree with your critique on the organization of main ideas and how it could be too technical. By adding an article's introduction, I could add a less technical layer to the article to avoid confusion. Although I find the examples relating to the issue to be prime examples, I don't know if congressional hearings and capitol insurrections be involved in the article as standalone sections.

Malak8462000 Peer Review:

I agree that possible solutions should be elaborated as mentioned with the citation sources examples. I don't agree with the review about the neutral stance, as it is a form of terrorism and the neutral stance should be impact and damage to the community.

Cfeldmar Peer Review:

I appreciate your idea is to add sources to the Social Dilemma section, but it is more of an excerpt from the movie Social Dilemma so there is nothing to source except for the original article.