Google: Evil Empire Yes? Evil Empire No?
I've said before that at least one person I know is convinced that Google is the Evil Empire. Why? "It" knows too much.
With its recent acquisition of DoubleClick ("A global internet advertising solutions company"), more and more people are edging into that camp.
When Google premiered, Internet users were thrilled. Google was simple - it just did what it said it was going to do, deliver good results for your searches. This came at a time when we were getting fed up with paid results getting in the way of what we were looking for. Google was no frills, no fuss. What's more, its creators had a wonderful sounding mission: to catalog all the world's information (only in retrospect does that sound ominous). And finally, in an appeal to the youthful idealist in us all, Brin and Page told us that the higher goal of Google, Inc. was to "do no evil."
Since then, Google has introduced one stellar product after another - most of them free. Gmail offers tons of free storage (though granted, you get contextual advertising along with your messages); Google's Blogger allows anyone to become a columnist; Google desktop search will index your computer's - even your network's - data for easy search and retrieval; Google documents lets you create, share, and store Word and Excel type documents online.
Here's the rub, as eWeek columnist Joe Wilcox explains in his 12/20/2007 article, The Google Monopoly Begins: if we were nervous about Microsoft getting a monopoly on access to the Internet via a browser (the subject of late 90s anti-trust pressures on Microsoft), how much more should we be concerned about a company that acts as a virtual information gatekeeper.
Here's how Wilcox sees it: Google is the search engine of choice, and is frequently the behind-the-scenes search engine for other search "portals." As such, Google has access to unimaginable amounts of information about people's interests, tastes, and shopping habits. And Google sells stuff.
Remember that "contextual advertising" I mentioned in reference to Gmail? If I write a friend about needing new glasses, her reply to me will be accompanied by ads for companies selling eyeglasses (or perhaps tableware). There are two things iffy about that: one is, my email has been parsed. Two is, my stated interest has been noted, and I have become a target recipient of appropriate messaging (from companies who are paying Google for the privilege of talking to me).
Now, I am torn about that... being advertised to when you're in the market to learn more or buy is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is perhaps more the Big Brother overtones that are disturbing: "We know what you are thinking, and we will actually act on that knowledge to influence (control?) your behavior."
Wilcox has another objection: "Google's business model leaches off the good work of others. Google produces nothing. Shall I repeat that statement? The company's core business is about search and advertising, which relies on the content of other people and businesses. Google doesn't own the information from which it makes nearly all its revenue. Google is the middleman of the information, which it takes for free. At least Microsoft produces software and makes money off the licensing. Microsoft owns what it sells, but not Google."
He reminds us that Google allows you to, for example, search books , and to view YouTube videos (some of the content is copy protected). Google makes money from these practices, but does not compensate the owners/authors/creators.
I'm still a Google fan. Information in the aggregate is mostly harmful, I think, if it is used to coerce us into making choices we'd rather not make, or if it eliminates our choices because "most people" will prefer Brand B over Brand A. Even some personal information gathering has not only become the norm, but the preference of many of us - think of Amazon and its recommended products that are offered to us based on past purchases and searches. Though Google has skated along the edges of "evil," we have yet to learn whether Google is an Evil Empire, or just an Empire.
I've said before that at least one person I know is convinced that Google is the Evil Empire. Why? "It" knows too much.
With its recent acquisition of DoubleClick ("A global internet advertising solutions company"), more and more people are edging into that camp.
When Google premiered, Internet users were thrilled. Google was simple - it just did what it said it was going to do, deliver good results for your searches. This came at a time when we were getting fed up with paid results getting in the way of what we were looking for. Google was no frills, no fuss. What's more, its creators had a wonderful sounding mission: to catalog all the world's information (only in retrospect does that sound ominous). And finally, in an appeal to the youthful idealist in us all, Brin and Page told us that the higher goal of Google, Inc. was to "do no evil."
Since then, Google has introduced one stellar product after another - most of them free. Gmail offers tons of free storage (though granted, you get contextual advertising along with your messages); Google's Blogger allows anyone to become a columnist; Google desktop search will index your computer's - even your network's - data for easy search and retrieval; Google documents lets you create, share, and store Word and Excel type documents online.
Here's the rub, as eWeek columnist Joe Wilcox explains in his 12/20/2007 article, The Google Monopoly Begins: if we were nervous about Microsoft getting a monopoly on access to the Internet via a browser (the subject of late 90s anti-trust pressures on Microsoft), how much more should we be concerned about a company that acts as a virtual information gatekeeper.
Here's how Wilcox sees it: Google is the search engine of choice, and is frequently the behind-the-scenes search engine for other search "portals." As such, Google has access to unimaginable amounts of information about people's interests, tastes, and shopping habits. And Google sells stuff.
Remember that "contextual advertising" I mentioned in reference to Gmail? If I write a friend about needing new glasses, her reply to me will be accompanied by ads for companies selling eyeglasses (or perhaps tableware). There are two things iffy about that: one is, my email has been parsed. Two is, my stated interest has been noted, and I have become a target recipient of appropriate messaging (from companies who are paying Google for the privilege of talking to me).
Now, I am torn about that... being advertised to when you're in the market to learn more or buy is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is perhaps more the Big Brother overtones that are disturbing: "We know what you are thinking, and we will actually act on that knowledge to influence (control?) your behavior."
Wilcox has another objection: "Google's business model leaches off the good work of others. Google produces nothing. Shall I repeat that statement? The company's core business is about search and advertising, which relies on the content of other people and businesses. Google doesn't own the information from which it makes nearly all its revenue. Google is the middleman of the information, which it takes for free. At least Microsoft produces software and makes money off the licensing. Microsoft owns what it sells, but not Google."
He reminds us that Google allows you to, for example, search books , and to view YouTube videos (some of the content is copy protected). Google makes money from these practices, but does not compensate the owners/authors/creators.
I'm still a Google fan. Information in the aggregate is mostly harmful, I think, if it is used to coerce us into making choices we'd rather not make, or if it eliminates our choices because "most people" will prefer Brand B over Brand A. Even some personal information gathering has not only become the norm, but the preference of many of us - think of Amazon and its recommended products that are offered to us based on past purchases and searches. Though Google has skated along the edges of "evil," we have yet to learn whether Google is an Evil Empire, or just an Empire.
Comments