I had an interesting exchange with Bill Hall (always a pleasure with Bill by the way, he thinks unlike others ...) on the Value networks listserv this week. The subject was Google's inherent moral qualities. It all started withe the list serve being hit by some spam designed to get advertising money through Google. My final summary of the position was accepted by Bill and I reproduce it here. I had half in jest, half seriously suggested that Google had gone over to the dark side. Bill defended them (with qualifications) with particular reference to their provision of hugely useful tools at zero cost bar the odd advert and occasional spam attack. Contextual explanations in italics.
- We are agreed that Google provides a whole bunch of very useful tools which it would be difficult to live without
- We are agreed with prosecuting the hell out of anyone who abuses privacy and other laws
- We are agreed that Google Scholar is useful, although I have concerns about its ability to discover trans-disciplinary material or to make the sort of connections I can get in a University Library or via social networks. Interesting (and this has been a point of past disagreement) I find blogs and RSS feeds a more useful search mechanism here.
- Yes the NSA and GCHQ and others filter data and communications (I had expressed concern about personal data being gathered by Google to assist search, Bill had pointed out that government agencies do it all the time). However, that said, and despite reservations about their control, they are government agencies, ultimately under government control. Google on the other hand is a private company
- I do not agree with you on the issue of a monopoly where Google is concerned. (Bill had said: The fact is that Google does not have a monopoly and Microsoft had and still does have one. This is probably going to make it very difficult to make any kind of case against Google that depends on assuming it has a genuine monopoly. Microsoft's clearly monopolistic practices were enhanced by network externalities that simply don't exist where Google is concerned) No Google is not there with Microsoft yet, but it is close, It is also potentially more dangerous as it is not managing its monopoly by control over technology, but by the utility of its tools. That allows, through acquisition and sheer resource, it to maintain a monopoly outside some of the conventional legal challenges that are possible (cf, the EU challenge to Microsoft).
- We are probably agreed that there is a possibility (and history would say an inevitability but I am not so sure) that competition will appear to Google not by doing what it does better, but providing a different approach . That is the way of technology
- We may have different views of the potential power of semantics. I think we can get a lot out of them. However I think there are necessary limits to the nature of language and the analysis of language no matter how sophisticated. Here I think Deacon and others work which has destroyed Chomsky's theory of language and the notion of deep structures is going to turn out to be more significant that we thought.
- The issue of the balance of good and evil is an interesting one. My feeling is that China demonstrated a boundary transition for Google. One of those that once made opens the floodgates. Nicholas Carr, who to my mind is one of the most knowledgeable commentators on technology in general is also starting to raise concerns so its not just me. They are not yet evil, but they have been prepared to engage in evil acts. The history of companies is that they will continue at least to indifference to good, if not specifically to evil.
Comments (2)
Interesting to hear you use the words "evil" and "good" throughout. You use them as if they are absolutes. The tone that comes through is one which is eerily reminiscent of Tony Blair (" we did it because it was the RIGHT thing to do....."). Just as he claims to have the moral high ground on.....well...everything, so you seem to be doing the same with regard to the actions of Google. I'm interested to hear more about your definition of "evil" in this context. What are the "boundaries" involved here? Are we all supposed to share them - or is this a purely personal perspective of what consititues corporate evil? Look forward to hearing from you!
Posted by David Cronshaw | June 4, 2007 7:17 PM
Posted on June 4, 2007 19:17
Good and evil were picked up from the initial "bantering" exchange on the listserv. I should probably have modified them here
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 5, 2007 4:02 AM
Posted on June 5, 2007 04:02