How to Win the Internet: Beat the Google Machine

Retrieved from http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/archives/leadership/index.shtml

Since 2007, Google has been the most used search engine on the Internet with 75.2% of the U.S search market share as of December 2014 (Diffen, 2015; Hof, 2015).  Not only does Google dominate the U.S search market, they own and operate many top (and mostly free) internet tools including, but not limited to, Gmail, Orkut, Google+, YouTube, Google Adwords, Google Adsense, Google Analytics, Google News Feed, Google Earth, Blogger, Google Toolbar and more. 

Google owns everything on the Internet including YOU!  I know, I know….that sounds a little ridiculous and cheesy, but, before you click away, allow me explain in further detail.

Google is NOT a Free Service

Even though most of Google’s tools are free to the general Internet-savvy public, each and every consumer action is purposefully designed to make Google money.  The horizontal communication structure of the Internet itself allows many people, groups, and companies to engage in open and free conversation.  Every user that chooses and uses Google to “upload photos, and images, write wall posting and comments, send mail to their contacts, accumulate friends or browse other profiles on Facebook, constitute an audience commodity that is sold to advertisers” (Fuchs, 2013).  Google…

1) Indexes user-generated content and “thereby acting as a meta-exploiter of all user-generated content producers” (aka, you and me) and

2) Relies on users to use Google services to click on ads, send Gmail, upload/watch videos, comment on Blogger, etc. so to gather data on users the use the data (and free labor) to make money off of tools like Adwords and Adsense (Fuchs, 2013).

Welcome to the machine.

Vaidhyanathan says it the best when he says that we are “‘not Google’s customers, we are its product.  We are what Google sells to advertisers’” (Fuchs, 2013).  When all is said and done, Google is an extremely well-run capitalist company that just seems to get more powerful as time moves forward.  With all that power, I know I can’t help but ask….

Why should we be concerned?

Google is very good at keeping it’s brand realistic and positive.  Not every capitalist company has to be “evil”, hence, Google’s genius-ly simple corporate motto “Don’t beEvil” (Why didn’t I think of that?) (Google, 2015).  But after a little bit of research, a couple weaknesses in Google’s structure have become apparent:

All Checks, No Balances
The Internet is already highly unregulated.  It was made that way.  This lack of Internet regulation by any government leaves Google’s power at the hands of the company with the most Internet market share, which is Google.  “The global nature of Google’s services allows the company to evade and bypass national regulations” (Fuchs, 2013).  The combination of this power and “Internet anarchy” leaves Google’s expertise with all of the checks and no balances. 

With little regulation comes loads of Internet fraud.  In Scott Pelley’s 2014 60 Minute Interview with FBI Director, James Comey, Comey himself expressed worry that Google and Apple have “the power to upend the rule of law” (2014).  He states “‘The notion that we would market devices that would allow someone to place themselves beyond the law, troubles me a lot. As a country, I don't know why we would want to put people beyond the law.... The notion that people have devices, again, that with court orders, based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism, we could never open that phone? My sense is that we've gone too far when we've gone there.’” (Pelley, 2014).

There are pros and cons to every technological advancement, but what happens when technological advancements go too far?  Can we fully just trust Google to make good decisions for us? For our culture? For the world? 

Google’s potential to manipulate users viewpoints is already beginning.  Here’s one example:

The Knowledge Graph
We all love it…well, we’re forced to use it.  The Knowledge Graph is the algorithm that suggests searches for us AND goes beyond word to word recognition.  Google’s video will help you understand a little better: 

Yeah!  Alright!  Amazing technology!  Geniuses!  But wait a minute, while my search life get a little simpler and faster, isn’t Google essentially completing my sentences for me and assuming what I want to know?  While this is wonderful, this control can also be dangerous.  Vang points out that the Knowledge Graph allows Google to “decisively puts itself in the shoes of a traditional editor of knowledge rather than a mere disseminator of links” (2013).  This position enables Google to hold a “a significantly powerful position in both access to web-based information and the digitization of the world's books, Google is more than any other corporation a force to be reckoned with in our everyday lives.” (Vang, 2013).   As former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, explained the concept of Google’s role in our world, he stated “I don't believe people want Google to answer their questions [...] People want Google to tell them what to do next.” (Vang, 2013).  Doesn’t that sound like mind control to you?

This “Filter Bubble” requires much critical thinking in order to decipher which information is good and which is bad.  As Internet users, we would like to trust that everything Google finds for us is true, unbiased, and objective, but that is not always the case…and that is where it gets dangerous (Pariser, 2011).  Pariser states that unlike traditional media like TV New Channels and the radio allow you to make a “decision about what kind of filter to use to make sense of the world.  It’s an active process, and putting on a pair of tinted glasses, you can guess how the editor’ leaning shapes your perception.” However, with engines like Google, “you don’t make the same kind of choice with personalized filters.  They come to you—and because they drive up profits for the websites that use them, they’ll become harder and harder to avoid.” (Pariser, 2011). 

Google’s Transparency is Rather Foggy

Google has a whole website dedicated to their code of conduct and an entire page dedicated to their Transparency in U.S. Public Policy, but their work practices suggest that their best interest may not be fully geared to user privacy.  Here are some global examples of these foggy situations:

No CAPTCHA reCAPCHA
CAPTCHA codes are those annoying boxes added at the end of registration pages, online checkout carts, etc. that filter out real humans from online spiders and bots.  You type in a series of letters and numbers and, in an instant if you’re lucky, you’ve completed your purchase.  No CAPTCHA reCAPCHA is Google’s attempt to optimize the CAPTCHA design.  However, AdTruth has found that  “Google’s No CAPTCHA reCAPTCHA appears to be collecting personally identifiable additional data beyond mere behavioral cues about their users” to determine exactly which human you are.” (O’Reilly, 2015).  When asked about user privacy futher, Google couldn’t give the media a straight answer both online and off. 

Google Street View
Meanwhile, in Germany, a Google Street View car was driving around and simultaneously taking pictures for online viewing.  While this tool was accepted in the United States, “it elicited immediate objections in Europe, where privacy laws are tough.  [Historically] The Nazis used government data to systematically pursue Jews and other unwanted groups. The East German secret police, the Stasi, similarly controlled data to monitor perceived enemies”(O’Brien & Streitfeld, 2012).  When asked about this highly sensitive topic further, “Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counselor, wrote in a blog post on April 27, 2010, that the company had not previously revealed this part of Street View because, ‘We did not think it was necessary’” (O’Brien & Streitfeld, 2012).  A BLOG POST?? You’re only response is via blog post?? Really, Google…really?  Not only does this communication lack transparency through proper explanation and assurance, this tells the world that Google is not sensitive to international cultures.  Good or evil….? 

So, What Can Be Done?

Despite their few flaws, I believe that 1) Google really does have good intentions with everything that they do (it’s easy to be a critic) and 2) these ethical dilemmas can be easily intercepted if executed early and can, simultaneously, strengthen the Google brand.  The following solutions can help Google become a leader in ethical Internet practices and protect users from online deception:

Establish a Google Ethics Board/Committee
Google currently has a written, public code of conduct and corporate motto, but is that enough?  A formal Board of Ethics can help Google enforce ethical practices with every tool Google develops and to ensure Google’s accountability.  Currently, Google’s acquisition of DeepMind Technologies has driven Google to create an Ethics Board for this particular branch (Efrati, 2014).  The wheels are in motion.  Google can do this for all of it’s other branches, products, online tools as well.

Users Unite and Become More Accountable for Searches
To put it simply, “the power Google has to know us and shape how we use information is emblematic not of their corporate ambitions, but of the power of information, and the general public's carelessness with its use.” (Vang, 2013).  As we have seen, Google has the power to manipulate the masses with information, however, individuals can overcome this power through education.  Knowing how to use Google’s tools, how to navigate the Internet properly, which articles and ads to trust/not trust, etc. can protect you from fraud, attacks, and general deception.  Recognizing how powerful searches, Google, and other online tools are is just half the battle to win the Internet.  Education is the only way to break the cycle of carelessness and ignorance. 

Let's use the internet to teach each other.  If you have any thoughts on this vast and powerful topic (or think I could use some education), please don’t hesitate to comment below!

References:

Diffen. (2015).  Google vs. Yahoo. Retrieved from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Google_vs_Yahoo

Efrati, A.  (27 January 2014).  Google Beat Facebook for DeepMind, Creates Ethics Board.  The Information.  Retrieved from https://www.theinformation.com/google-beat-facebook-for-deepmind-creates-ethics-board

Fuchs, C. (2013). A contribution to the critique of the political economy of Google. Fast Capitalism. Retrieved from http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/Google_FastCapitalism.pdf

Google.  (2015).  U.S. Public Policy: Transparency.  Retrieved from http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html

Harshman, E. M., Gilsinan, J.F., Fisher, J.E., Yeager, F. C. (May 2005).  Professional Ethics in a Virtual World: The Impact of the Internet on Traditional Notions of Professionalism.  Journal of Business Ethics (vol. 58, p. 227-236).  Drodrecht, Netherlands; Springer Science & Business Media.

Hof, R. (8 January 2015).  Why Google's Search Market Share Loss To Yahoo Means Pretty Much Nothing.  Forbes.  Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2015/01/08/why-googles-search-market-share-loss-to-yahoo-means-pretty-much-nothing/

O’Brien, K. J., Streitfeld, D. (22 May 2012).  Google Privacy Inquiries Get Little Cooperation.  The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/google-privacy-inquiries-get-little-cooperation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

O’Reilly, L. (20 February 2015). Google's new CAPTCHA security login raises 'legitimate privacy concerns'.  Business Insider.  Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-no-captcha-adtruth-privacy-research-2015-2

Pariser, E. (2011).  The Filter Bubble (p. 10). London, England; Penguin Books, Ltd.

Pelley, S. (12 October 2014).  FBI Director on Privacy, Electronic Surveillance. 60 Minutes.  Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-director-james-comey-on-privacy-and-surveillance/

Vang, K. J. (2013).  Ethics of Google's Knowledge Graph: some considerations.  Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society. (vol. 11, p. 245-260).  Bingley, UK; Emerald Group Publishing, ltd.