Google.org
I am not sure why I find the concept of a "philanthropic arm" of Google a little creepy.
On the face of it, any organization, particularly a successful one, that devotes some of its profits to doing good deeds should be a positive thing, right? Here is how Google.org defines itself: "Google.org aspires to use the power of information to help people better their lives. We are an experiment in active philanthropy. In addition to financial resources, we are fortunate to be able to engage Google’s entire family of people and partners, information technologies and other resources to address three major growing global problems: climate change, global public health, and economic development and poverty.
"We know these are major concerns for a large number of individuals and institutions throughout the world, and google.org joins a community of like minded groups working to make the planet and population healthier and more equitable."
As we are warned, however, in the New York Times article on Google.com: "But unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes."
Again, on the face of it, there is something sensible about funding efforts to solve problems that are good enough that they end up making money. In fact, it's probably a pretty smart way to approach solving problems.
What bothers me, then?
Is it the possibility that choosing the problems to solve might depend on how high the problems rank in popularity? (i.e., while Global "warming," aka "Climate Change" may or may not be an actual scientifically-proven "problem," in the collective awareness it is most certainly a problem. Diverting funds and efforts to "solve" this problem may result in other, more real and/or pressing problems to get scant attention.)
Is it the possibility that Google "knows" too much about our collective behavior, and as a result, how to influence that collective behavior?
Is it the potential for exclusionary tactics? As Larry Brilliant, the (wonderfully named) Executive Director of Google.org said, "Today we have even better electronic trolling services. Google has invested billions of dollars in search capacity. The company is providing these tools to a consortium of disaster-response organizations to provide earlier detection and coordinated response to pandemics and other disasters." Google could spot trends it finds socially acceptable, and ignore those it does not.
Or perhaps I've just been sensitized by my "Google is the evil empire" friend's view of the ubiquitousness - and intrusiveness - of the information giant. It's certainly an effort that bears watching.
I am not sure why I find the concept of a "philanthropic arm" of Google a little creepy.
On the face of it, any organization, particularly a successful one, that devotes some of its profits to doing good deeds should be a positive thing, right? Here is how Google.org defines itself: "Google.org aspires to use the power of information to help people better their lives. We are an experiment in active philanthropy. In addition to financial resources, we are fortunate to be able to engage Google’s entire family of people and partners, information technologies and other resources to address three major growing global problems: climate change, global public health, and economic development and poverty.
"We know these are major concerns for a large number of individuals and institutions throughout the world, and google.org joins a community of like minded groups working to make the planet and population healthier and more equitable."
As we are warned, however, in the New York Times article on Google.com: "But unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes."
Again, on the face of it, there is something sensible about funding efforts to solve problems that are good enough that they end up making money. In fact, it's probably a pretty smart way to approach solving problems.
What bothers me, then?
Is it the possibility that choosing the problems to solve might depend on how high the problems rank in popularity? (i.e., while Global "warming," aka "Climate Change" may or may not be an actual scientifically-proven "problem," in the collective awareness it is most certainly a problem. Diverting funds and efforts to "solve" this problem may result in other, more real and/or pressing problems to get scant attention.)
Is it the possibility that Google "knows" too much about our collective behavior, and as a result, how to influence that collective behavior?
Is it the potential for exclusionary tactics? As Larry Brilliant, the (wonderfully named) Executive Director of Google.org said, "Today we have even better electronic trolling services. Google has invested billions of dollars in search capacity. The company is providing these tools to a consortium of disaster-response organizations to provide earlier detection and coordinated response to pandemics and other disasters." Google could spot trends it finds socially acceptable, and ignore those it does not.
Or perhaps I've just been sensitized by my "Google is the evil empire" friend's view of the ubiquitousness - and intrusiveness - of the information giant. It's certainly an effort that bears watching.
Comments