I should probably forgive John Battelle for the enraptured tone of his book, "The Search." I mean, I fawn over Google, too. I use it every day. It's my e-mail provider, go-to website, the way I track my online persona. And yes, it's probably changed the way a lot of people do a lot of things.
But what if Google's not as paradigm-shifting as Battelle makes them out to be? While the Gaurdian is declaring the death of capitalism and the birth of Google-ism, and this guy makes a pretty compelling claim Google is God, with it's omnipotence, omniprsence, and prayer-answering capabilities, I'm still not convinced.
I mean, there is an official Google Sucks website, with claims that Google partnered with China to censor the Internet. Another man calims that googlemaps almost landed him in jail. And the list could go on and on.
Whether or not I believe Google is great or ghastly though, I found all my support for either claim, on you guessed it, Google. Battelle must be right. Something that requires its usage just to argue its right or wrongness is something not just ubiquotous, it's revoluntionary--because it's the beginning and ending of seemingly all knowledge, even knowledge to disprove it.
This "Database of Intentions" as Battele terms it, has changed the entire world. It tracks our culture, our wants, and more. It's more than just a business model, it's a new way of life. I guess... But the new "Library of Alexandria"? "THE point of our inquiry and discovery"? That's lofty language.
What filled Google's role before google? The author argues that early, less-rudimentary computer-based search engines did, but something must have done so before that, even. Newspapers, consumer habits, church records, something. But Battelle would have you believe that there's really nothing before or after Google. It alone is the sole, supreme Database of Intentions. I'm not quite there yet. I'll need to do some more googling to find out.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
My Thoughts on Chapter 9 – “We The Media”
Gillmor makes the argument in Chapter 9 of his book that the Internet is a haven for liars, crooks and thieves. It’s easier than ever before, he argues, with the help of the Internet, to twist information, cherrypick what you want to share, and keep people in the dark. And with the wealth of information on the Internet, both true and false, it takes even longer to get to the bottom of things.
Gilmor says, “These techniques (of deception) are made to order for the Internet, where lies spread quickly and can do enormous damage before the truth catches up.”
I kind of disagree. While I definitely believe that it’s easy to lie on the Internet, I don’t yet know if the Internet actually magnifies man’s propensity to lie, which has been great throughout history.
Gilmor’s examples are lacking. His Schmich/Vonnegut example, in which a commencement essay came to be misquoted as an address by a famous author, is perhaps a testament to the redemptive nature of the Internet. He dwells on the fact that the lie was propagated online, but we could just as easily stress that it was the Internet itself that helped ultimately spread the truth. Could any other medium have allowed the reality of a situation like this come to light as quickly? In the past, a newspaper retraction would never have reached as large an audience in print. An essay critical of a recent book’s flaws might very well have fallen on deaf ears.
His Kerry/Fonda example is actually a critique on PhotoShop, NOT the Internet. Doctored photos were a reality before the Net, and have wreaked havoc on politics long before the World Wide Web came about.
Ultimately, I concede that the Internet can be a force for ill, but I refuse to yet believe that the Internet has created any more ill than was there before it hit the scene.
It’s a crude example, but entertain this:
Decades and centuries ago, a cheating man just wouldn’t come home. He’d tell his wife some lie about working late or going to visit his sick mother. Eventually, he came to relay that message through someone on horseback, perhaps. Land-line phones were the next carrier of such deception. Now, that same man can lie to his significant other via text message, or on g-chat. No matter the technology, though, he’s still lying. She’s still deceived. It’s just a bit fancier now.
The Internet created lying in the same way a cell-phone created cheating. Neither create the action, they just perpetuate it differently than before.
The trick is to be ethical enough not to be the “cheating man” on the Internet, and smart enough to know when someone’s trying to use the Web to make you the deceived “significant other.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
