Blackspot

Google's Flaw

A crime against knowledge.

It was recently announced that the Texas attorney general is investigating Google for allegedly altering search results to the detriment of its competitors. Underlying the investigation is the assumption that any human interference in Google's machine generated search results violates the principle of "search neutrality". While it is commendable that attention is finally turning to Google's overwhelming power to distort knowledge, basing the attack on the principle of "search neutrality" is irredeemably flawed. A far deeper, essential critique must be made against Google's commercialization of knowledge.

The idea that search engines can, or should, be neutral can be traced back to a movement of leftist librarians in the 1970s. Led by Sanford Berman, one of the first to bring social rebellion into the library, radical librarians argued that the system used to organize books was inherently biased and racist because it reflected a Western perspective. At that time, and to this day in nearly all public and academic libraries, books were organized in subject hierarchies. Berman believed that this system was deeply problematic. He wrote that, "western chauvinism permeates the [library's organizational] scheme". And called for a "disinterested scheme for the arrangement of books and knowledge". In so doing, he paved the way for search engines.

Berman, and his generation of radical librarians, placed their faith in technology. They assumed that the automation of indexing, what we now call search engines, would provide a "disinterested scheme". And we see today in the actions of the Texas attorney general, the same flawed assumption that search engines can be "neutral" or "disinterested".

But since the beginning, indexes have been biased. The first index, the ancestor of today's search engines, was developed in 1230 AD when a team of 500 monks led by a French Dominican Cardinal, Hugh of St. Cler, completed the world’s first index of the Bible. It was a major intellectual breakthrough. For the first time scholars, without a lifetime of study, could quickly know every reference in the bible to particular words, such as mercy or charity. The index had a profound impact on the way the bible was studied. It was called a concordance because, as one contemporary historian explains, it allowed theology students to "see the concord or agreement of key words in their numerous locations in scripture”. The index was not only a tool for studying the bible, it changed the way the bible was understood. In other words, the index was biased in a way that was considered useful.

However, by the eighteenth century, intellectuals such as Jonathan Swift foresaw that indexes would become a major threat to wisdom. They argued that indexes promoted superficiality and discord. They called this uniquely modern form of stupidity "index learning". And blamed modern ignorance on the practice of jumping in and out of a book based on its index rather than deep reading. Even earlier, in 1661, Joseph Glanvil wrote, "Methinks 'tis a pitiful piece of knowledge that can be learned from an index, and a poor ambition to be rich in the inventory of another’s treasure."

Regardless of what Swift and Glanvil thought of index learning, by the early 20th century there were already dreams of building a "universal index" of all human knowledge. One of the first to propose this idea was Henry Wheately. In 1902 he wrote an apt description of Google: "The object of the general index is just this, that anything, however disconnected, can be placed there, and much that would otherwise be lost will there find a resting-place. Always growing and never pretending to be complete, the index will be useful to all, and its consulters will be sure to find something worth their trouble, if not all they may require". Wheately was ahead of his time. Without computers, his plan was impossible. However, the dream persisted and by the late 1960s, computers had been programmed to build keyword indexes. It would take another forty years for Google to make Wheately's vision of a universal index seem practical.

When we search Google, we do not search the internet directly. Instead, we search Google's index of the internet. When we type in apple, for example, it is as if we are opening an incalculably large book and flipping to a section that lists all the times apple has been mentioned on the internet. Google is an index, a concordance of human knowledge.

There are fundamental, structural problems with the intellectual foundations of search engines. That search indexes fragment knowledge is clear. That they encourage superficial learning is also true. Indeed, as Nicholas Carr has written, Google is making us stupid. These problems will continue to exist even if the index is totally automated.

The essential problem with Google is that it no longer considers itself primarily a search engine. Instead, Google believes it is an advertising company whose search results are mere fodder for commercial messages. This is the crime Google has committed. It is not in violating the principle of neutrality, an ideal that never existed in the history of knowledge organization. Google's crime is against human culture.

Google has stolen our common knowledge and commercialized the library. The long-term cultural consequences of this deplorable criminal act are unclear. But Google's loathsome introduction of advertising into search results is travesty that must be investigated.

Now is the time to begin a substantial inquiry into Google's practices, not because they violate "search neutrality" but because they violate the human need for commercial-free learning.

Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley and is writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org

Adbusters 111 Cover

On Newsstands December 3

At last we’re in Winter. It’s the year 2047. A worn scrapbook from the future arrives in your lap. It offers a stunning global vision, a warning to the next generations, a repository of practical wisdom, and an invaluable roadmap which you need to navigate the dark times, and the opportunities, which lie ahead.

Subscribe to Adbusters Magazine

74 comments on the article “Google's Flaw”

Displaying 1 - 10 of 74

Page 1 of 8

Anonymous

Every time Micah White writes something about technology, I die a little inside.

A few easily ignorable ads are not worth condemning Google.

Jesus, Micah - rail against Apple or Microsoft who are truly anticompetitive by locking down their "proprietary" devices and software, limiting the use of the technologies.

Or rail against Google for something legitimate, like their deal with Verizon to forsake net neutrality on mobile networks.

Don't pretend Google's ads and results are brainwashing us, because Google has done more to create a culture of free information than adbusters will ever be capable of.

If you want to think about technology in a counter-consumer way, you should read up on:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.fsf.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Anonymous

Every time Micah White writes something about technology, I die a little inside.

A few easily ignorable ads are not worth condemning Google.

Jesus, Micah - rail against Apple or Microsoft who are truly anticompetitive by locking down their "proprietary" devices and software, limiting the use of the technologies.

Or rail against Google for something legitimate, like their deal with Verizon to forsake net neutrality on mobile networks.

Don't pretend Google's ads and results are brainwashing us, because Google has done more to create a culture of free information than adbusters will ever be capable of.

If you want to think about technology in a counter-consumer way, you should read up on:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.fsf.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Ronnie

I agree with my friend Anonymous here, though I still appreciate that Micah is raising these issues. While it is great that Google does what it does, and does so much to help with freedom and openness and all that jazz, I also think it tremendously important that we do not get too complacent and too trusting of the hand that feeds us. A king, be it good or evil, still holds absolute power.

Thank you Micah for what you do, and thank you Anonymous for keeping with the spirit of 'freedom'.

Ronnie

I agree with my friend Anonymous here, though I still appreciate that Micah is raising these issues. While it is great that Google does what it does, and does so much to help with freedom and openness and all that jazz, I also think it tremendously important that we do not get too complacent and too trusting of the hand that feeds us. A king, be it good or evil, still holds absolute power.

Thank you Micah for what you do, and thank you Anonymous for keeping with the spirit of 'freedom'.

Micah White

Hi Anonymous,

The very organizations you point to, such as GNU and FSF, also dislike Google's cloud computing and gmail. For different reasons than I argue above, of course.

"But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

Micah White

Hi Anonymous,

The very organizations you point to, such as GNU and FSF, also dislike Google's cloud computing and gmail. For different reasons than I argue above, of course.

"But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

Lush

I was interested to read this article, but was disappointed to find that the arguments against Google are written almost as an afterthought at the end of the article, are given only four paragraphs and are completely lacking in any foundation.

That Google is a commericial advertiser is obvious - that this is a "crime against humanity", not so obvious and certainly not backed up in this article. The claim that "Google believes it is an advertising company whose search results are mere fodder for commercial messages" is very interesting - I'd like to see where Micah White got the information in which Google states that they believe they are an advertising company, otherwise this is just the author's interpretation. Not only do I not buy in to this claim, I think that the author is taking a very narrow approach to examining Google as a company. Claiming the entire company is now an "advertising company" is failing to take in to account the many other areas of technology that Google is permeating: Google Maps, Google Books, the now dead Google Wave, YouTube, Gmail...the list goes on.

This is really a weak article. As a librarian I appreciate where the argument was headed (and the mention of Sanford Berman) - yes, indexing is not a perfect system and Google as a company is not a saint - but if one wants to criticize a technological giant one should look elsewhere. Google is one of the lesser evils and an advocate for open access materials. As the previous commenter posted, take a sharp look at the net neutrality goings-on that Google has been involved with if you really want to point out the flaws of the company.

Adbusters, I really expect more of you. Maybe I shouldn't.

Lush

I was interested to read this article, but was disappointed to find that the arguments against Google are written almost as an afterthought at the end of the article, are given only four paragraphs and are completely lacking in any foundation.

That Google is a commericial advertiser is obvious - that this is a "crime against humanity", not so obvious and certainly not backed up in this article. The claim that "Google believes it is an advertising company whose search results are mere fodder for commercial messages" is very interesting - I'd like to see where Micah White got the information in which Google states that they believe they are an advertising company, otherwise this is just the author's interpretation. Not only do I not buy in to this claim, I think that the author is taking a very narrow approach to examining Google as a company. Claiming the entire company is now an "advertising company" is failing to take in to account the many other areas of technology that Google is permeating: Google Maps, Google Books, the now dead Google Wave, YouTube, Gmail...the list goes on.

This is really a weak article. As a librarian I appreciate where the argument was headed (and the mention of Sanford Berman) - yes, indexing is not a perfect system and Google as a company is not a saint - but if one wants to criticize a technological giant one should look elsewhere. Google is one of the lesser evils and an advocate for open access materials. As the previous commenter posted, take a sharp look at the net neutrality goings-on that Google has been involved with if you really want to point out the flaws of the company.

Adbusters, I really expect more of you. Maybe I shouldn't.

Micah White

Hi Lush,

In May of 2009, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was interviewed by Charlie Rose. In this interview, Schmidt says unequivocally: "We are an advertising company." That is a direct quote. You can watch the video and read a transcript here: http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/07/eric-schmidt-tells-charlie-rose-google-is-unlikely-to-buy-twitter-and-wants-to-turn-phones-into-tvs/

Also, if you are curious as to the foundation behind the attack on Google I recommend these other two articles that I've written:

Google: Infoparasite:

"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."

https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/90/google-infoparasite.html

The Great Escape

"The consequences of Google’s commercialization of knowledge are apparent in our inability to confront the existential challenges we’re facing. While the physical world is dying, we remain transfixed by the shimmering digital world. We’re unable to critically sift through information, digest it into knowledge and combine it with personal experience to produce wisdom and action. Instead, we drift in a sea of disconnected facts, getting a buzz from being connected. But this passivity is not entirely our fault – it is induced by the experience of searching for knowledge online when everything has become a trivial, mindless commodity. Who can take the looming ecological catastrophe seriously when online content is squeezed between ads that either distract us or stimulate us to consume?"

https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/google.html

Micah White

Hi Lush,

In May of 2009, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was interviewed by Charlie Rose. In this interview, Schmidt says unequivocally: "We are an advertising company." That is a direct quote. You can watch the video and read a transcript here: http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/07/eric-schmidt-tells-charlie-rose-google-is-unlikely-to-buy-twitter-and-wants-to-turn-phones-into-tvs/

Also, if you are curious as to the foundation behind the attack on Google I recommend these other two articles that I've written:

Google: Infoparasite:

"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."

https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/90/google-infoparasite.html

The Great Escape

"The consequences of Google’s commercialization of knowledge are apparent in our inability to confront the existential challenges we’re facing. While the physical world is dying, we remain transfixed by the shimmering digital world. We’re unable to critically sift through information, digest it into knowledge and combine it with personal experience to produce wisdom and action. Instead, we drift in a sea of disconnected facts, getting a buzz from being connected. But this passivity is not entirely our fault – it is induced by the experience of searching for knowledge online when everything has become a trivial, mindless commodity. Who can take the looming ecological catastrophe seriously when online content is squeezed between ads that either distract us or stimulate us to consume?"

https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/google.html

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.