In our last class, we were shown an article that pointed out another aspect of Google’s vast knowledge of each of its users (http://www.fastcodesign.com/3058943/the-ux-of-ethics-should-google-tell-you-if-you-have-cancer). Every Google search you have that’s linked to you IP address, or your google account, every word you enter in any of Google’s apps, every move you make on their Chrome books or when using Google Chrome browser…all of that information is available to the computers and therefore the people that keep Google running.

In a new question, Google wants to know if it should advise certain users to see a doctor. It was pointed out that with specific algorithms, Google could piece together your searches of medical symptoms and determine if you were suffering from a potentially harmful condition. With this information, they could advise you to see a doctor, and thus potentially save the health or even the lives of some of their users. While this idea seems great in principle by adding an extra safety measure to our lives, there are also many issues it call into play.

Number one, where exactly does our privacy begin? Not only does Google collect every miniscule bit of data packed into our computers and browsers, now it wants to use that data to discover something potentially quite invasive about me? While I find myself wary enough at the information Google collects about me as it is, the idea that they want to use this information to determine things about my private life and health unnerves me quite a bit more. That would be where I draw the line. I trust my doctors to inform me if anything’s wrong with me, not an equation on a computer.

And that brings me to my second point. How accurate would this algorithm be? I could have looked up these symptoms for other people. I’m going to do it the same way I’ll search for symptoms I’m feeling myself. Earlier this year, I did a research project in which I explored atrial fibrillation and other heart conditions. It was necessary for me to look up many conditions so I could explain them adequately. While I do have a very real risk of developing any number of heart conditions, only two of my searches contained something I’m diagnosed with, and they were the most mundane. A few years ago, I looked up child development of young babies, the progression of a pregnancy, and I’ve looked up baby names many times. But I am not pregnant and never have been. Any conclusions Google could make about me based on any of these searches would be false. Even now, is Google collecting this data and coming to conclusions about us that are possibly false?

To drive home my point, perhaps I should point out more concretely that Google doesn’t know everything. I have a Google+ account that I’ve accessed less than a handful of times. Occasionally I get emails about it, even though I don’t use it. Even with all of the information Google has collected about me, in this particular instance the important portion of it would be that the last time I accessed Google+ was more than two years ago, I still received an email that asked “Do you know Molly Fitzpatrick?” While I understand the premise—it’s trying to point out people that I could add on Google+ and thus increase my use of the site—the fact that this email asking if I knew my sister came on the heels of a class where we discussed just how much Google knows about each of us made it appear absurd.

Bottom line, I don’t want google anywhere near my medical file. It’s a browser, a producer of digital media, and a collection of tools—not a doctor. I think I’ll stick to my cardiologist.

As media has changed and developed, new platforms have been introduced and one thing that has changed drastically is how we find and acquire music. Way back when, there were records, or albums. They played on a turn-table and the little needle transcribed the music from the surface of the record. You had to be really careful with them, because they scratched really easily. Then came cassette tapes, CDs, and then MP3 players and iPods. Music for these players could be uploaded from CDs you owned or bought from places like iTunes. Now, media has evolved so much that my dad is converting his records to MP3’s and selling them—and that’s saying something because he used to own hundreds.

I’ve always been partial to CDs, of which my dad also has hundreds, so I think I’ve been duly influenced, and even though iTunes has taken over, I prefer buying CD’s to buying individual songs. I’ve found lately that I’m of the mindset to find an artist I like and listen to all of their music as well as music like theirs. This is where newer music sites like Pandora and Spotify come in. I have accounts to these sites as well as YouTube. One huge thing I love about YouTube and Spotify is that you can pick songs you like and create playlists. While the ads suck, it’s not much different from the actual radio, and I like listening to a set of music that I’ve chosen, although oftentimes I just get carried away and don’t split up the music very well. I’ve got a huge playlist of basically everything on each platform. Because I listen to all different kinds of music, this is sometimes annoying.

It is when these mixed up playlists are getting on my nerves that I turn to Pandora or Spotify artists. On Pandora, I can pick an artist and they will play music that is similar to that of that artist as well as music by that artist. Spotify artists will play all of the music by that particular artist. Both are cool because you can either stay with someone you know you like, or you could break out and explore new artists. Pandora also has the like and dislike feature. You can thumbs up or thumbs down songs according to your preferences, and Pandora takes this data into account when it searches for new songs to play you.

The one tough thing about using these internet radios and playlists as opposed to buying your own music is that it’s less accessible if you don’t have a smartphone or Wi-Fi. Also, the only way to get it without ads is to pay a monthly fee. Another huge issue is that these free radio and playlist programs are taking away profit from those who sell their music on iTunes. Once you sign up for Spotify premium, you have no ads, can play any song any time you want, and can access your playlists offline—it’s similar to an iPod or MP3 player, and cheaper because you only pay an access fee instead of paying for each individual song. So who do you want to support?

I’m a huge reader—I read every free moment I have, to be honest, so I decided to take a look at how new media is affecting literature. Marshall McLuhan, author of “The Medium is the Message,” spoke about how different modes of media are affected by the ever changing world that introduces new digital steps forward very often. In this instance, media is defined as “various material ways information can be communicated.” In the instance of literature, methods for creating and presenting it are changing, and along with these methods, the ways by which we consume this media changes also.

As McLuhan says “the media through which literature is communicated is no longer considered secondary to the literary content or form, but deserving attention in its own right.” Literary content and forms are influenced by the media of their transmission. Suddenly, both the kind of literature and how it’s read or accessed are equally important.

To start with, we have regular books. Made of paper, some have illustrations, others have pop-ups, but they’re all pretty simple. Then came eReaders. eReaders allowed us to access books on different media platforms; we had the option of buying books from the websites of the companies that produced the eReaders, but eventually, libraries catered to eReaders as well with their overdrive system that is basically a digital library. I, of course, still think you should be able to scan the barcode of any book you own and access it on these eReaders, and while you can’t do that, the steps we’ve taken allow us to work with books in the same way over the internet as we do in real life. We’ve been given venues to both buy and rent them. As far as the media platform being just as important as the material itself, while eReaders have gotten more sophisticated to the point where they are basically tablets, so too have eBooks. Books exist that you can interact with, some have little videos in them, and they all change and evolve as their platform does.

eReaders have also made magazines more accessible, Time Magazine in particular has windows you can scroll through, videos you can play, and interactive diagrams—very similar to the new concept of the online interactive textbook. As media changes, it also becomes more prevalent in schools. These interactive textbooks are coming on the heels of bringing iPads into classrooms and ensuring all students have access to their own computer.

But it’s not just eReaders and iPads that are changing the way we see literature, but the internet and social media itself. There is the concept of blogging novels; where authors post novels piece by piece. One such blogging author reports liking it, but also being aware that in order to blog her novel, she had to rewrite her work from its original story. In order for it to fit within word count limits, she had to shorten her work. While this makes things a little more accessible, it also means the story could lose some of its meaning. Another type of literature that’s gaining popularity is “Twitterature,” which is basically flash fiction on Twitter. In particular, people have taken to “rewriting” classic novels to fit the character count of a tweet. Twitterature is an interesting concept because writers receive immediate feedback, as well as gain followers and fans, however the platform limits viewers. Those who are not as tech savvy are excluded from the audience. It’s also not as coherent because the character limit of 240 characters limits the use of the English language. There is also the increase in the possibility of plagiarism.

While these new media types of literature are interesting, and I might be interested in trying “Twitterature,” I think for the most part, I’ll stick to books.