On the assumption that posting at least two comments about something on two separate blogs means I feel strongly about it, I’ve decided to wade into the whole Google-BMW fray. So here goes:
Can’t we save the term Orwellian for something really meaningful, like a state taking some kind of oppressive action against its own citizens, or using doublespeak in the service of some great wrong? Using it to describe an Internet search engine engaging in the site-indexing business is more than a little over-the-top, I would argue. Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0, who has said in the past that he wishes bloggers would take more time with their posts and not say things just to be inflammatory, says he wonders whether “total power [will] totally corrupt Google.”
Just one question, Scott: Since when does Google have anything approaching “total power?” It’s a search engine, for pete’s sake. It indexes websites. Yes, it cut off BMW’s German site because they used hidden front pages to try and game the indexing and page-rank process - which Google has made clear is not allowed. So their site was removed. But despite the inflammatory rhetoric everyone loves to use to make it seem a lot more exciting than it really is, this is hardly a “death penalty.” There are plenty of other search engines.
Google’s market share isn’t even close to giving it the kind of dominance that would justify a term like “total power,” or make removing a site the equivalent of cutting off BMW’s “oxygen supply,” as my friend Paul Kedrosky describes it. And for Scott to mutter darkly about whether his post on the subject might earn him the wrath of the great Google, or for Alex Muse of Texas Venture Capital to wonder whether doing so might affect his page-rank is just ridiculous. Surely there are some really important issues out there that we could all be devoting some time to instead of this.
Discussion
Comments for “Google and Orwell? Come on, people”
Add New Comment
Viewing 4 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
It would indeed be inflammatory to suggest that Google is "totally corrupt" -- clearly, it's not, and I didn't say that -- I was "wondering," not declaring. Yes, Google doesn't have "total" power over search, but they do have total power over all the traffic they do control.
When I say that Google appears to be behaving in an Orwellian fashion, it is judgment about their tone, not about fairness, morality, or legality -- at least not yet.
I can only hope you are right in your separating Google's actions from "something really meaningful."
Orwell's lesson (I'm thinking here of Animal Farm, not 1984) is that the slippery slope doesn't begin with "a boot stamping on a human face." Each step in the descent can be written off as benign.
If you can sleep well on this, then sweet dreams. But it's still keeping me awake at night.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Scott, don't let the bedbugs bite.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Thanks for the response. I would agree that the high-handed and
somewhat self-righteous attitude Google has shown towards BMW is
worthy of criticism, and they could probably have handled it better.
And your point about Animal Farm is well taken.
But I still think seeing dark portents in what Google has done is
overdoing it just a tad. After all, Google doesn't even have 50 per
cent of the search market -- excluding a single site is hardly a death
sentence.
If you had used the Orwell reference after Google's China decision, I
might have actually agreed with you there. I think the slippery slope
is a lot steeper when it comes to that kind of thing, and the
potential "evil" much greater.
Anyway, glad to have your input as always.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Wonder if anyone else will try to get 'banned' from Google?
Add New Comment
Trackbacks