Google has executed an information coup d’état. From its early days as a noncommercial search engine powered by geeky idealists, it has become the primary force in commercializing our culture. No bit of online content escapes Google’s grasp without first being turned into fodder for advertising. Whether it is our emails, our videos or our blogs and books, access is granted only if we accept the presence of targeted advertising. Google has become the commercialized frame through which our culture is accessed, and it is therefore the first advertising company to achieve the status of the cultural paratext.
For literary theorists, the paratext is contrasted with the hypotext. While the latter refers to the content of the author’s words, the paratext is everything that surrounds those pages: the cover, the copyright notice, the editor’s introduction, the author’s bio – all these make up the content that complements the hypotext. The paratext is a part of the overall text, but it plays a unique role in framing the work. When we speak of not judging a book by its cover, for example, we are acknowledging the overwhelming power that the paratext has in influencing our interpretation of the original source material. Understanding the force of the paratext pushes us to consider the consequences for our culture if everything online is surrounded in a frame of advertising.
This is why quibbles over the relevance and usefulness of Google’s ads, or whether they are distracting, miss the fundamental point. If advertising becomes the frame of our culture, then all thought is constrained by its horizon. The forces of commercialization need not counter the messages of anti-consumerism if they are able to play the role of the paratext. Simply running advertisements alongside attacks on commercialized culture neutralizes that resistance. All of a sudden it seems unreasonable, impossible or old-fashioned to dream outside Google’s ad-frame.
Google is happy to remain an infoparasite, an organization attaching advertising to the creative products of our minds, because there has been little resistance. Unlike traditional advertisers, whose interjection of 30-second spots into the hypotext of culture alienated viewers, Google promotes the illusion that it doesn’t change the content: It only provides access. But whether one is rewriting the hypotext or replacing the paratext, the overall effect is the same: Authentic culture, our only hope of escaping consumerism, is appropriated and commercialized.
Today’s culture jammers face a formidable challenge. It takes courage to become the early pioneers of the backlash against Google: to be the first to refuse to have our words become hypotext for the advertising frame. That means turning our back on this search engine-turned-info-highwayman by simultaneously undermining its image of omniscience while we hurt its bottom line.
Remove your writings, your images, yourself from Google. Make it known that our cultural productions are not available for commercial exploitation. And while we challenge the assumption that Google is all knowing, let us hit advertisers where it hurts: by clicking on all the ads. With each click we will cost the advertisers money while spreading the most powerful idea of all: that the paratext of ads is about to be ruptured by a movement of jammers taking back their culture.
Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters. He lives in Berkeley, CA and is currently writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org
After reading this article,
After reading this article, went to gMail and searched the screen for ads.
I found one. A small text ad that I never look at, slightly above my Inbox screen. And guess what? You can disable it by going to the WebClips tab in settings and deselecting "Show me webclips".
Next, I did a google search.
Guess what? 0 ads. Unless, you're referring to the "Sponsored links".
And if you're referring to "Sponsored Links", then yes, you're correct. Google is hounding us with a few "links" on a side of the page that I never look at.
You make it sound like Google is the Big Brother. Your paranoia dilutes reality.
Hmm...how about stop using
Hmm...how about stop using Google and, better yet, the Internet? I am so sick of articles only about Google or Twitter or Facebook. These sites are not that important in the grand scheme of life!!! Boycott them, and go talk to people face to face, and read real, physical books. I mean my god, why doesn't anyone want to go out and live anymore instead of endlessly searching for things on Google? Limit your Internet-use time as much as you possibly can, please, for the sake of human community. Don't let yourselves become drones.
I do believe, that things got
I do believe, that things got mixed up here a bit. The point Micah might have with "clicking on adds is costing advertisers money" is actually true. You do pay by click (because you expect sales out of that click) and the more people click (without buying) the more you pay. But even more true is, that you indeed pay google, that is the advertisers do. However, the idea might reaches beyond the next step, because by clicking on ads aimlessly, the are getting more expensive, while sales do not increase, hence the advertisement model fails.
The solution most of you now came up with, or the fear, that if google and its advertisers note, that the ads don´t work anymore and that they then close down free accounts or whatever seems a bit weird. I rather believer what someone said about moving even further in the middle. From advertisers poitn of view, I think they will even get more agrressive and creepy, trying to enter social site to approach user directly and/or in "their" language or on their mobiles.
Another problem no one has mentioned yet, concerning google, is that they already invest and look into the control of news. News are considered up to now, by most people as something neutral and trustworthy (although this notion has become less true with PR and the like). However, controlling peoples searches also means control of access and by controlling what is trustful News, google becomes even more of an uncontrolled giant. Did you know, that not only google, but yahoo and agencies track searches on the web constantly to see what comes up, i.e. what people are looking for? They then create the content matching the search, but not to make the web a better, more informative place (something google still claims, very clever marketing indeed), but to create an ad-environment, that can be easily targeted.
some facts about what money is in ads: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/ftc-blocking-of-google-mobile-ad-...
How bidding works: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_googlenom...
But...but...I can still find
But...but...I can still find Micah White on Google.
I love Micah White and I hate
I love Micah White and I hate advertising, but I do think she's off track here. Yes Google are now by far the largest purveyors of advertising, so they make a natural Adbusters target. In fact it's almost surprising it's taken until now for someone to take a swipe, but the reality is Google is probably the best company to handle advertising. Few realize that Google's dirty little secret is that they don't actually like advertising.
The founders are more than just well meaning geeks, they're actually 15 veterans of Burning Man, the counter-cultural arts festival with a heavy anti-commercial bias. Where money is banned and any advertising (the logo on your rent-a-truck for example) is requested to be covered up or replace with art. It's almost impossible to go to Burning Man and not understand and indeed embrace this agenda and the Google boys clearly do. For example, Google recently allowed software developers to add plug-in adblocking software to their Chrome browser. That's clearly contradictory to their business model, but their thinking was that by allowing users to block ads, it will force advertisers to create ads that people actually want.
Sure, Adbusters reader would love to rid the world of ALL advertising, but I still see a place for 'company messages' about a product that tells me the details and 'pros' about their product, as much as I also want to see user reviews and ratings that give me the 'cons' and straight dope for a balanced picture. And this is exactly the model that Google supplies. Advertising when you ask for it, along side user ratings and reviews. Want ads drained of the gratuitous aspirational marketing ploys, and replaced with succinct details of their product or service? Add the ad busting plug-ins to Chrome and let companies know that you want information, not hollow marketing scams. Yes we should all keep our watchdog status, but we're extremely lucky Google's at the helm.
There is Add-Art for
There is Add-Art for replacing Google Ads with artworks:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6846/
Also don't forget the Google Will Eat Itself project by Ubermorgen: http://gwei.org
The most insightful comment
The most insightful comment in the article is this:
"This is why quibbles over the relevance and usefulness of Google’s ads, or whether they are distracting, miss the fundamental point. If advertising becomes the frame of our culture, then all thought is constrained by its horizon. The forces of commercialization need not counter the messages of anti-consumerism if they are able to play the role of the paratext."
The institutional structures which afford us 'free speech' are really unconcerned with the content or ideology or philosophy espoused, as long as those statements come from customers first and free thinkers second.
What the article endorses is not a better Google (as suggested above), but a truly radical shift in our approach to what it means to share a society. If economic interest is the only standard by which we judge what is worth producing for all of society to share (whether information, opinion, or yeah, propaganda), then that is not a free society. It is merely sandbox politics writ large. When kids become adults, the bullies learn that the wallet is more effective than the fist.
"When kids become adults, the
"When kids become adults, the bullies learn that the wallet is more effective than the fist."
Well said.
hey you should really try
hey you should really try duckduckgo, it has pretty much replaced google for me outside of image queries. super secure too!
I love that I accessed this
I love that I accessed this article from my fully-customized iGoogle home page, which includes a direct link to Adbusters.
So how to remove our
So how to remove our writings, images, and our others' cultural production from google?
ask yourselves how much the
ask yourselves how much the advertising affects the content you searched for. Don't let a writer tell you how everyone is controlled by this or that. From my personal experience, I can tell you: all advertising I see every and anywhere at any time has never affected my own choices when I went somewhere to spend money. Anything I bought would have been bought whether advertised or not. These people who raise alarms about their cultural space being colonised are alarmists looking for supporters. Judge how you respond and go on that. When someone claims to know how we all feel... THEIR WRONG.
no YOUR wrong.
no YOUR wrong.
Everybody thinks advertising
Everybody thinks advertising doesn't affect them. You are not special, and you can't spell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect
I am curious to know why
I am curious to know why google itself is being attacked - yes it's the biggest, but I don't think it's the baddest, as the commenter said who mentioned yahoo and hotmail. Commercialism is everywhere. What concerns me moreso is potential censorship - the fact that google has cooperated with the Chinese government to block searches related to "Tiananmen Square" seems to be bigger news than how they advertise - or is it just assumed that readers will know that? I would be more worried about the idea of google working w/the government to compile information on people suspected of "domestic terrorism," a phrase that becomes more loosely defined every year.
Until the internet can be taken back by the people and truly run with no money, advertising will be everywhere. I think that this article is a good start, but misdirected. Kind of like the people who organize 'critical mass' - it's a good intention, but carried out in a way that shoots the movement in its own foot.
Kinda like tearing down commercial culture while displaying advertisements that appeal to the "anti-corporate" (hipster?) demographic.
If you use Chrome as your
If you use Chrome as your browser, install Adblock (located here: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbigl... )
and Adsweep (located here: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/milkhonmecplandlkfbjplfbdenj... )
Even though they both do the same thing, together they both effectively block ads from being shown in browser (I'd say 98% just because sometimes a few slip through and it doesn't cover ads before videos).
On the subject of adblocking
On the subject of adblocking capabilities, both Camino (http://caminobrowser.org/) and Opera (http://www.opera.com/) also have decent plug-ins and/or built in settings which effectively block most ads on the internets.
I thought the site hosting
I thought the site hosting the ad makes money when you click on it..
Me too
Me too
The point is to undermine the
The point is to undermine the assumption that advertising clicks translate into online sales. Currently, advertisers pay per click and google profits from the belief that these clicks are real people... by clicking on advertising randomly, you cost advertisers money and undermine google's business model.
That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't make any sense. The more people click on the ads, regardless of their intent, the more it suggests to marketers that the ads are effective, hence google and the advertisers make money...
This was a great article overall, but the last sentence is a non-sequitor and seems like very bad advice.
You could always download
You could always download adblocker for firefox and negate the effect of web advertising. The only problem is that small websites that don't have many hits are dependent on the revenue they get from advertising and by blocking their ads, you help kill them.
Well, it's kinda like this..
Well, it's kinda like this.. if google didn't have ads then they wouldn't make ass loads of cash and it wouldn't be economically feasible for them to provide everyone with unlimited space on their free gmail accounts or give me accurate directions that include satellite images and a view of what the street corner I'm turning on should look like... Compared to my old free hotmail or yahoo, with their limited space and ostentatious advertising, google's ads are relatively easy to ignore and on top of that they're investing the profits in a way that improves the overall function of the online environment.
Yea, they use advertising exponentially increase their utility, but they do so in a way that for the time being is totally benign for now. What we should really be scared of is what happens in the future. Will G keep it's ads in the easy to ignore periphery or will it slowly slide into the center of our screens, becoming more visible and obnoxious as their grip on the market tightens?
Until we're all talking on our G cell phones and surfing on G provided internet service and then all of a sudden receive a text, a pop up, and an email at the same time about some amazing new offer, then that's when we'll know we got fucked.
The only thing that can save us from that really is a company better than G, that improves the model the same way G did over it's previous competition; but clicking ads? Doesn't that just funnel more money straight to the company you're trying to 'jam'?
TN is right, if google uses
TN is right, if google uses its ads to subsidse our free gmail accounts then it's still a net benefit for all of us. As for all that stuff about a corporation somehow singlehandedly taking over the world wide web by altering our brain structure...... yea im not quite sold on that proposition. There will always be free market competion governing the web. If people are unsatisfied about the amount of ads that appear on their email screens (this is an actual concern when dealing with refresh time) then they can always swtich to something else.
Keep in mind cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier's words.
"A piece of free software is worth as much as it costs to make the swtich to the another piece of free of software"
Whoa whoa now.. What about
Whoa whoa now..
What about my gmail account?
there are other providers out
there are other providers out there.