Response to lincoln, matwyshyn, and harris

1. The Guardian’s Kevin Lincoln asks readers to consider the increasingly permeable boundaries between our devices and ourselves.  He begins with a thought experiment:

“…where do you end? Not your body, but you, the nebulous identity you think of as your “self”. Does it end at the limits of your physical form? Or does it include your voice, which can now be heard as far as outer space; your personal and behavioral data, which is spread out across the impossibly broad plane known as digital space; and your active online personas, which probably encompass dozens of different social media networks, text message conversations, and email exchanges?” 

How do you respond to Lincoln’s provocation?  How do you understand your identity in an era of increasingly digital relations?  Where do the boundaries of your “self” begin and end?  

2. Lincoln also makes the case that we each have a distinctly reciprocal relationship with our phones, involving an active give-and-take: these devices not only facilitate our access to the world, they also facilitate the world’s access to us.  Along those lines, he considers the power dynamics involved in such a relationship, especially when our “extended selves” are largely managed by what he calls the “big five” (Apple, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Meta (Facebook), and Amazon).  How does Lincoln, along with scholars like Moira Weigel, suggest we might limit the influence these companies have on individual consumers?

3. Andrea Matwshyn considers the evolving “platformization” of the body and its legal implications.   According to Matwyshyn, what is the “Internet of Bodies” (IoB) and why should we care about it?  What specific IoB applications stood out to you from this article?  Matwyshyn describes several legal challenges that the IoB raises.  Select one specific legal concern from this article and discuss.  What issue did you select and why?  (please note: You do not need to read the entire article.  Please focus on pages 77 – 129).

4. Harris describes a situation in which technology implanted in the body has obsolete and unsupported. While this is common for digital technologies, it take vastly more complex issues when they tech is implanted into a human body different. How do you think should be responsible for helping these customers? What regulatory policies do you think would need to be in place to make sure that it does not happen again? 

Your response must be at least 350 words (total, all answers combined).  Please see the response guide here. 


Approximately 250 words