In “The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture”, John Battelle traces not only the history of the company but also the history of the technology that supports the search tool. In doing so, he places it in the context of other great notions of knowledge, the Memex being the foremost example.
In retracing the steps that were taken to create Google, he starts at the beginning with the original idea of a tool that could rank pages (not coincidentally dubbed “PageRank”) according to the significance of the site (itself based on the number of times it was linked to or referenced by other sites. This worked along side of Backrub, which tracked how many sites linked back to a given site.
This method of searching was patterned on the scientific research model wherein the significance of an article, or of a journal was based on the number of citations and the impact of journal in which the citation is published. In theory, this results in not only the most relevant works but also the most popular. In theory if most people have the same search psychology the results given should then be the results that have proven useful to the most people.
Inevitably, this leads to some sites being ranked very high and others being demoted to the rank of also-ran. In the early frontier days of the web this system insulted some who felt their internet-award winning pages should thusly be awarded top placement on search engines as well. Some were reportedly so enraged that they petitioned Google directly to vent their anger. Yet in the end, they had no one to blame but an algorithm.
Whereas the links on a personal webpage are more likely to be handpicked, the links on Google are generated by hi-speed web-crawling spiders that capture not the page, but the information within it. This also caused consternation for some early site owners, who feared for their bandwidth and the intellectual property it contained.
Battelle demonstrates how just as early web-users had to be instructed in searching; early website owners had to be educated about what it meant to be searched.
The process of merchant education having been accomplished, Google evolved into a multifaceted business. From their roots as a search engine, to the sales of prime advertising ranks, to the sale of keywords, Google has established a business based on the way we search, the way we think and the way we organize our lives in the virtual world.
One such organizational innovation that arose out of the corporate creative process is G-Mail. More than a tool to send e-mail, G-mail is a tool for deriving profit by scanning for keywords within users e-mail messages. This is problematic in an era of privacy concerns, however Google tries to sooth these worries with the knowledge that the tool searches only for Keywords, not gossip.
However, in an era when Google saturates the virtual experience of users with its branded content, it is not unrealistic to think that Google could capture everything about your search habits and match it with your identity. When this capability is combined with governmental hypersensitivity to supposed terrorist threats, some are concerned that the company whose motto is “Don’t Be Evil” could be up to no good. With the passage of the USA PATRIOT ACT, the legal mechanism for such nefariousness is all but in place.
In the context of global information commerce, this capability has implications far beyond America. In markets such as China, with repressive governments it can result in total information blackouts. It can also result in the capability to track those deemed dissidents merely for speaking their mind.
Is this the new cost of doing business – cracking down on dissidents in one country and cracking down on supposed terrorists in another to ensure continued profits? Is it idealism to suggest that Google could do better? Is it idealism to suggest that we should demand more? Should innovative technology be innovative enough to move beyond the petty squabbles of governments? Alternatively, is the technology too enmeshed in our culture, and in our government to make this reality indeed realistic?
All of this not to create a parallel paranoia about a new world order. Rather, going forward we, as users of technology need to be conscious of our consumption. Just as we would not throw away that which can be recycled, we should not give away that which should be saved. We can maintain our freedom if we are aware of the risks inherent in any action taken. A holistic approach to information consumption allows for effective communication combined with an awareness of the processes of communication. While we should not live in fear, we should be aware of the way in which our information passes through communication conduits. Within this context should never forget our own accountability for our decisions and the accountability of those we trust with our information in making those decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment