Your algorithmic play artefact was great too. The difference between your wish list and purchase lists is quite interesting – its reminded me of the Netflix article (http://www.wired.com/2013/08/qq_netflix-algorithm/), in that they seem interested in what people *say* they watch compared to what they actually watch. This seems like quite a typical psychology experiment – so is are those theories and disciplinary areas dominant amongst ‘web scientists’ and ‘algorithmists’, I wonder. And what implications might that have for the ways algorithms are set into motion?

Great to pick up on the use of the term ‘inspired’ in reference to the algorithmic operation – particularly given the ‘you loop’ and filter bubble arguments that might interpret these recommendation systems as offering predictability and providing no inspiration at all!

Interesting as well that you cannot say what you actual ‘like’. So it presumes that a purchase is the same as an endorsement. So, is that just a case of the algorithm needed to become more nuanced? a better algorithm?

Like your points about the extended self in your Storify too. I wondered if you could also say that you *become* algorithmic – in the sense that you chose the options given to you by the algorithm. The algorithm influences your behaviour so that you act in an algorithmic way. I wonder then if the notion of an ‘extended’ self is enough? Doesn’t the algorithm also extend into us? Which is the core, and which is the extension?