Lions, and Tigers, and GOOGLE, oh my!

What comes to mind when you hear the word Google?

Search, discovery, answers, questions, or even the colorful letters that makeup “Google” above the search box (which usually change daily according to the season/holiday, how cute!) — whatever may come to mind, it seems to be positive and beneficial.

So, you think, Google is great.  It allows the world to search its database about anything their heart desires, just one click, and we get it!  And their email is cool too – wow, it’s up to 6844 megabytes already?!  Thanks, Google, you’re the best.

Not so fast.  Remember when Mom told you if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is?  Well, it is.  All of this comes with a price: privacy.

“Don’t be Evil” is the corporate motto of Google.  John Battelle sums it up nicely in his book The Search by saying, “Don’t be Evil is a wonderful sentiment for describing the ethical boundaries of internal company dealings, but when your business is understood to be a global arbiter of human knowledge and commerce, sticking to such a principled stand can become extremely…tricky.”

What does “Don’t be Evil” really mean?  Play fair? Have morals? Google fails on both accounts.

1. Play fair.

Google currently controls about 59.3% of the search market, and about half of all online advertising revenue online.  It’s biggest competitor, Yahoo, owns only a measly 16.9% of the market.  According to The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch,

Microsoft made an ultimately unsuccessful bid to acquire Yahoo earlier this year in an effort to build a formidable opponent for Google in the online search market. Yahoo opted instead to sign a search advertising partnership with Google.

If you think that this sounds fishy, you’re not alone.  Some are calling their practices anti-competitive.

The New York Times published an article called Relax, Bill Gates; It’s Google’s Turn as the Villain.  In this article, Brian Lent, the president of Medio Systems, is quoted,

Google is the new evil empire, because they’re in such a powerful position in terms of control. They have potential monopolistic control over access to information…I like and respect the Google guys, but let’s just say that their ultimate aim seems to me to be, ‘One Google under Google, for which it stands.’

Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, agrees,

Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did….It’s largely that they’re hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they’re working on so many different things. It’s harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now.

According to Wikipeida, anti-competitive practices are practices that prevent and/or reduce competition in a market. These practices can lead to a monopoly.  Google seems pretty darn close to me.

2.  Have morals.

Think your emails are private?  What about your searches, or clickstreams?  Do you believe Google provides us with a comprehensive, unbiased, and free access search?  Think again.

Did you know that Google can review your personal information whenever it wants to?  John Battelle reiterates Google’s company policy:

We may share [private] information…[if] we conclude that we are required by law or have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public.

REASONABLY NECESSARY?  Who determines this?  Mr. Lent had certainly had it right, “One Google under Google, for which it stands.”  How far will Google take this?  Who do they think they are?  And, why are we so trusting of them?

A portion of Google’s mission statement states:

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  And proudly boasts that after using Google you will understand “why others say, ‘Google is the closest thing the Web has to an ultimate answer machine.’

China would not agree with this.

In fall 2002, due to strict government regulations, the Chinese government filtered out Google among other search engines.  After two weeks, Google was restored back to Chinese citizens – but, when one would click on a link that posed problems with Chinese government, they were redirected to a government approved site.  Soon after, Google announced,”…in order to create the best possible search experience for our mainland China users we will not include site whose content is not accessible.”  I agree with John Battelle when he points out that,

Clearly Google was taking out all evidence of the banned site because that’s what the Chinese government wanted it to do…by working with China to omit certain sites, Google had seemingly become an accessory to evil.

Exactly.  This was a precedent set by Google.  Who else will be given the authority to tell Google what should and should not be on their search?  Who else will be blocked?  How far will this go?

Google is [currently the major] one of many ways to search the database of intentions that John Battelle talks about in his book, The Search.  The Database of Intentions is the aggregate results of every search, and paths taken from there.  It represents “a placeholder for the intentions of humankind – a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes” for all to know, or discover.  Pretty intense.  This has already had a huge impact on today’s society, and there is still more to come.

Reading Response: “We the Media” by Dan Gillmor

After reading, We the Media by Dan Gillmor, I have been asked:  What is the most important point, and why?

Gillmor makes two major points.  First, the Internet has given us the ability to exchange information and converse openly, freely, and very easily, which in turn, has and will continue to forever change traditional public relations, journalism, politics, and Big Media as we know it.  We the Media.  Anyone can be a reporter, photographer, critic, and the like.  Additionally, Gillmor stresses that it is vital that we fully embrace this change and allow ourselves to be part of it, not to ignore it, in order to succeed.

Up until very recently, traditional media was all we had.  Whether we received it via TV, radio, newspapers, or books, we were only consumers of news.  Today, with Internet websites like OhMyNews and Kuro5hin, participatory journalism has blossomed.  And, rightfully so!  Two heads are better than one. And, collectively, the audience knows more than the experienced member of the press.  Gillmor outlines this very well, and goes on to mention that participatory journalism is also helpful in unique niches, which I agree.  Gillmor says, “My main focus in this book is on what happens when people at the edges participate in the news-gathering and dissemination processes…The news is what we make of it, in more ways than one.”

In order to succeed in PR, journalism, politics, and business in the 21st century, we must understand and participate in this conversation.  We must recognize its value and importance and follow suit.  In Chapter 6, Dan Gillmor goes on to discuss traditional media’s opportunity, in which he criticizes the choice some organizations make to not include reporters’ or editors’ email addresses at the end of stories, and The Washington Post’s webchats as not enough interactivity with the audience.   I think he’s gone a bit too far and I have to disagree.

Depending on the organization, providing an email address at the end of an article is not always necessary.  Any person with a valid question or comment can discover contact information, whether it be on the “Contact Us” link, or choose to call the main number, or use the generic email address provided.  I believe that perhaps by making it “too” accessible, the writer/editor would be bombarded with bogus emails cluttering their inbox, making it a waste of time – already short on time with numerous deadlines.  I believe The Washington Post’s attempt at community discussions and conversations via their webchat is a good idea.  Additionally, they have links to blogs, past and current discussions, and podcasts.  Instead, I wish Dan Gillmor provided constructive criticism on what exactly the site is lacking – because to me, it seems well done.  Realistically, what more could they have done to increase interactivity in this case?

We the Media was informative and interesting.  With the exception of a few comments, I agree with Dan Gillmor and enjoyed his book.