In “normal” times, it’s the most wonderful tiiiiiiiiiiiime of the year…for fitness centers. As regular gym-goers know, January is usually a crowded time at the gym where folks with New Years’ Resolutions either return to the gym or start a new membership. Fitness Centers gain new membership around the New Year, but they don’t have to worry about renting more space or buying more equipment — only 18% of people with a gym membership regularly use the gym.

This year, as we worry (even tongue in cheek) on Twitter about #quarantine15 or #covidcurves, and as locales continue or strengthen lock-down measures, virtual fitness has become very popular. Forbes reports that wearable fitness devices (think FitBit, Apple, and Samsung) are part of a “boom” of wearable devices where “double-digit growth” is expected through 2024.

As part of my coursework for Ethical Decision Making in Information Practices at Rutgers University, I explored the ethical dilemma: should public libraries act as public health initiative sites to address the obesity epidemic? In examining this question, I focused on one responses found within public libraries: designing fitness programming using fitness tracking devices. For one example see Illinois Library 2019’s walkathon.  

Many libraries, like fitness centers, are currently shut down for in-person visits. Because the New Year is approaching and because people seem pre-occupied with weight gain, libraries may be very tempted to create fitness programming that relies on virtual fitness technology. In this series, I will explore different facets of ethical-decision making around this topic including a classical ethical response, how our context impacts our ethical decision-making, intersectional justice ethics, and the ethics of care.