Both teams shared readings to read before their respective presentations, and they both explored how computing reshapes social and bodily boundaries. Nelimarkka showed us that simply feeding diverse news links into Facebook groups does little to bridge ideological camps or find common ground along pro and anti migration topics as an example, so our design solutions must address how people frame and debate content, not just what they encounter. The next reading from Burwell maps parallel cracks at the neural level, how BCI promise communication and control yet raise questions about autonomy, safety, and equitable access that current guidelines barely touch.
Both papers lean on established frameworks we’ve talked about in class like virtue ethics in design and principlism in biomedicine to find gaps and steer research. By allowing for discourse and clinical uncertainty, they show that ethical reasoning thrives on empirical evidence and not random speculation. Similarly, both of them highlight social context. In other words, migration debates depend on national trust cultures, while BCI inequities mirror broader problems in health care. These insights show us the value of integrating design research with normative analysis across different computing disciplines.
I think the common thread is responsibility. Designers who celebrate empowerment must also steer the contexts in which power circulates. I feel uneasy when risk-benefit talk stops at the individual user.