Lighthousewoman’s Blog

I’ve just started reading “Groundswell” by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff of Forrester Research. The introductory chapters are really just simple survey of some of the main online ‘technologies’ the authors argue are disrupting institutional power (blogs, social networking sites, wikis etc). This is not really new material, but it is presented in a clear and concise way, which can help you map out in your mind the main features, advantages and disadvantages associated with these ‘new’ forms of communication and interaction.

Although not central to the main ideas that will be developed in the book’s later chapters, one specific point of interest jumped out at me as I read the opening chapters. Now that I am becoming a little bit more familiar with some of the key ideas and avenues for online communication and interaction, I’m finding I’m more and more interested and inspired by little ideas that jump out as I discover new sites and opportunities…

First, a brief survey of social networking in Chapter 2 mentions a French site called Peuplade (www.peuplade.fr). Here’s how it is described in the book:

“In Paris there’s even a social network called Peuplade whole sole purpose is to connect people with others in their own neighbourhood – amazingly, people use this social network to make friends and hang out with folks who live right around the corner.”

I guess that is amazing – but I don’t find it surprising. In fact, I think it’s a FANTASTIC idea. Thinking about the inner city suburb I live in at home in Sydney, I know I’ve often wondered how you might bring people together in a local area about common issues of interest or concern – especially when you don’t even know the people that live around you! I lived in my inner city suburb for over 2 years, and in the area for many more, and would claim to be familiar with the local area. But I certainly didn’t know the people who lived right next door! I don’t think this is uncommon – and perhaps, in some ways, it’s a direct consequence of the increasingly atomized, individualized lifestyles we’re leading online and off. I would guess that the people in my suburb would be demographically similar to me in may ways – and on the whole would have very similar political leanings. Certainly, if we came together as a community, we would have common interests in the safety, amenity and enjoyment of our local area. 

But how would I get to know these people, who are so like me, and live so close by? Would I put some posters up on the telegraph poles in the neighbourhood? Who reads those? And of the people that DO read them, only the crazy ones actually turn up to meetings advertised on them. Would I just go up to people on the street as the pass by and introduce myself? Only if I want to be either a) smacked in the face, b) spat at or c) stared at as though I were a loon. No no no…. I should reach them in the comfort and safety of their own home, on their own terms, and in a way that suits them – online!

Seriously, I’m really keen to try this at home. What a brilliant way to bring people together at a local level to start building social capital. Now, if only I could figure out how to build a site like that and make it work…

Perhaps if we ask really nicely…….

Reading John Battelle’s excellent book The Search tracking the rise and rise of Google is a thrilling read. The energy and ingenuity of Google’s founders are palpable as the story unfolds – it’s enough to inspire me to run off and birth my own start-up……

Learning Google’s story has certainly opened my eyes to the enormous power inherent in search, and in the company that owns it. As Battelle illustrates, Google’s power has been generated by the seismic shift the corporation has engendered by Net’s orientation away from content, toward intent. Take for instance the tale of Mr Moncrief, the shoe salesman, whose online business was brought to its knees overnight when Google adjusted its search algorithm, sending Moncrief’s business listing plummeting hundreds of places down the search results page. This is one of many tales throughout Battelle’s book that show us the huge power Google now wields as the go-to search provider.

Which brings me to one of the hottest questions in the bloggosphere right now – is google using its powers for good or (dun dun daaaaaaa)… is google evil?

There are certainly plenty of skeptics out there. One of the biggest issues of concern is privacy. What, some bloggers ask, is stopping Google from amassing unprecedented stores of private information about its users, and perhaps ultimately using this information for commercial gain? Some have even put this question directly to Google. And Google has been straight up in response:

Charlie Rose:
This is a broader philosophical question I want to talk about later. But I mean is there some point in which we know too much about people?

Marissa Mayer:
Well I think that in all cases it’s a tradeoff, right, where you will give you some of your privacy in order to gain some functionality, and so we really need to make those tradeoffs really clear to people, what information are we using and what’s the benefit to them? And then ultimately leave it to user choice so the user can decide. And you have to be very transparent about what information you have about that user and how it’s being used.

The Noisy Channel has a really great recent post that outlines the arguments for and against the proposition ‘does Google violate its “Don’t be Evil” motto?’, ( as argued in a recent Intelligence Squared debate hosted by the Rosencranz Foundation) by Harry Lewis, Randal Picker and Siva Vaidhaynathan (yes it is) vs Esther Dyson, Jim Harper and Jeff Jarvis (no it’s not). (By the way – thank goodness for Esther representing the ladies. Since it was International Women’s Day this week, I couldn’t help but notice the abundance of middle aged blokes out there spruiking books about how amazing the internet is at the moment…)

Anyway – two things I found particularly interesting about this debate. First – Jeff Jarvis’ position (as summarized by The Noisy Channel – I admit I haven’t actually listened to the debate yet…) Jarvis, currently on a book tour with his new opus “What Would Google Do?” argues (according to The Noisy Channel) that:

[Google's] very aspiration to not be evil is evidence in its favor. If Google is evil, then the standard it too high and we are all evil.

Jarvis seems to be a straight up Google uber-fan. For example, one of his recent posts on Buzzmachine suggests Google could – if left to its own devices – generate a solution to the world’s energy and climate crisis. Contrasting Google’s approach to the energy challenge to Al Gore’s tax-and-regulate approach to polluters, Jarvis argues Google’s strategy holds far more promise: ‘Create and manage abundance rather than control scarcity – as ever, that is the Google world view.’

Interesting. So not only is Google not evil, Google will actually save the world.

The second point of interest in the ‘is Google evil’ debate for me was the fact that Jarvis was accompanied on the pro-Google team by Jim Harper – Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, whose company motto is ‘Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace.’ I think this is an interesting reflection of the politics of the bloggosphere – where the prevalent view of good government regulation for internet service providers is no regulation. It doesn’t seem coincidental to me that the strongest advocates for the Google-will-save-the-world view are free market libertarians and their friends.

To me, the question of whether Google is evil is misguided. It shouldn’t be relevant. Google is a private company, which may have many driving motivations – but one of the strongest is (and will always be) profits. It shouldn’t be up to Google to decide how to behave as one of the world most powerful information-based corporations. As a private company, Google has a legitimate objective of profiting from its energetic, ingenious and innovative work. It may also aim not to do harm in this pursuit of profits – this is an admirable goal – but it’s not reasonable to expect Google to sacrifice profits for the greater good. 

So I ask again – why are we so afraid of government regulation online?