It is truly an unprecedented time to be living in as Covid-19 disrupts our lives and we get to experience firsthand how New Media handles the ever-important news cycle. Never has a pandemic of this scale hit society in the era of transcoding where written newspapers have seen a decrease in popularity in favor of its digital counterparts. I believe the two factors that are important in the way we perceive Covid-19 and its effects on the world are internet activism and algorithms.

Algorithms are immensely important in digital media in how they manage to influence our notions, actions, and attitudes. Algorithms make it so that specific information finds its way to us based on our history of internet activity. Coders manage to effectively develop algorithms that process information and give back the most ideal course of action. In this case of Covid-19, apps just as YouTube, Facebook, etc., will use their algorithm to look at the profiles and accumulated history retained from the app user to recommend and put in the forefront, information that more likely than not will fit the user’s fancy. The problem with this selective distribution of information is that now more than ever, we require nonpartisan facts and information so that we can adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, even in these times of desperation, news, stats, and facts are often opinionated and distorted through affiliations and biases.

Tarleton Gillespie in his piece “The Relevance of Algorithms” states, “Like search engines, journalists have developed tactics for determining what is most relevant, how to report it, and how to assure its relevance—a set of practices that are relatively invisible to their audience, a goal that they admit is messier to pursue than it might appear, and a principle that helps set aside but does not eradicate value judgments and personal politics.” (p. 181). This quote addresses the notion of objectivity in making certain information accessible and how it rarely exists in the current state of media. This subjective offering of information causes problems in internet activism which is heavily based on reactions from certain material they will see online. Zeynep Tufekci in “Algorithmic Harms Beyond Facebook And Google: Emergent Challenges of Computational Agency” states “It is important that gatekeepers acting with computational agency are able to tweak the content viewers receive on an individualized basis, without being visible. This functionality is often largely unknown to the users of given services.” (p. 7). The quote sheds light on the fact that internet activism can transform into an inappropriate reaction to information that is not without adulteration. Therefore, one must be very wary regarding what they respond to and how they go about responding to it.

In Michael J. Sandel’s lecture “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”, Sandel is concerned about the trend of fewer things becoming available that money cannot buy. It is argued that market practices are infiltrating “spheres of life” that we should expect are free of commercial dealings. I disagree with Sandel’s assertions of coercion and corruption being proper objections to the growing commercialization of acts such as surrogacy. Sandel would argue that in a case of surrogacy a surrogate mother is coerced into renting her body due to factors such as poverty, addictions, and limited means of income. Sandel would also argue that because a couple would pay for a woman to undergo the surrogate pregnancy, the woman degrades her body and the worth of the baby because she attaches a price onto them. I disagree with Sandel’s claims because I believe in women owning their bodies and having reproductive freedom. I do not believe in the idea of coercion being involved in the case of surrogacy because couples seeking children will provide an offer that is considered by the potential surrogate, The surrogate will have the ability to decide whether she will be better or worse off if she decides to accept the offer. The fact that there is an offer and the surrogate’s ability to choose whether to accept it removes any resemblance of a threat or pressure to comply. I also do not believe in the idea of surrogacy degrading either the woman’s body or the baby; I believe that for many women paid surrogacy presents them with an opportunity of empowerment through financial gain that can enable them to pursue an education or be in a position to provide more for their current or potential children. One may argue that there are massive ramifications of surrogacy becoming a market, the biggest being the fear of actual baby farming where underprivileged women are used by bigger entities to mass-produce babies. This would be an issue in terms of endangerment of health and violation of the rights of the surrogates by individuals looking for profit by cutting corners. In this case, I would provide a counter-argument that if there are consent and a proper offer system supported by transparent legal laws where women clearly can weigh their options then such an extreme situation where babies are produced like livestock is avoidable. As long as there is freedom in choice and neither party is harmed, I do not consider the objections of coercion and corruption to be valid arguments against a market for surrogates.