The first link ted.com was very informative, prior to watching the video I had some knowledge that a user could personalize the way he browses the internet or uses Google, but I did not think this perk would be a bad thing. After watching the video, I commented the information to a couple of my friends and they did not know either that Google or when searching something, the results we obtain are no longer standard to everyone, they are personalized based on the past searches we make so that Google uses this information and an algorithmic equation and decides to display links and information based on what it decides is information we should be receiving according to our preferences. We no longer receive standard universal information and although it does seem appealing to be able to have a custom made browser fit for each individual, this can also be harmful because we wont be able to access right away relevant important information like the example shown in the video when two different people googled Afghanistan. Personally, I feel it is not a good idea to only receive information based on our preferences because then we are not able to receive unbiased information. The other website, nybooks.com shocked me a little bit. The amount of access websites have on our daily life like knowing where we are when we look something up, what things we search, the entire invasion of privacy is disturbing.Also, the idea of having a World Wide Mind seemed to me a little too much. I support and agree with technology being used to help people hear again or even see again, but for me this is more of a need. It is not necessarily for the sake of vanity but it is actually needed. The idea of having some kind of device in our brain that would allow us to have direct access to the internet or to communicate with a friend and becoming some kind of a cyborg  is pushing it too much. We are already heavily dependent and attached to the internet and accessing through our gadgets to in addition have it physically attached to our brain. I don't think this is needed. The last article on wired.com I think has a completely different message to the earlier websites. It seems to support the "echo chambers" effect and that it can be beneficial and perhaps even more informative to be surrounded by people that think alike and that although a person is perhaps only being exposed to a certain amount of information, they can still broaden their knowledge of other things which may also be achieved with 'weak ties' yet the effectiveness of weak ties depends a lot on the amount of time we actually talk with them. I agree with the article and think that since tour friends know you much better, it is more beneficial relationship. When I thought of this article and the first two, it made me question even more if it is harmful or beneficial to receive information on the internet based on our preferences and not a standard result since after all, it seems like the web knows us very well and it is similar to us being surrounded only by close friends who will give us information they know will be appealing to us.