Related link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/index.html
Just days after Google Inc. refused a US Justice Department demand to turn over data on its customers' searches, the company has revealed it will cooperate with China in censorship. The Google marketing department is no doubt ready with a re-engineered company motto:
Just Be A Little Evil.
Maybe Google has in fact taken a cue from the US government, which also has a new motto: We Don't Torture People (As Much As We Could).
This corruption of Google's once idealistic mission points out an important trend to which we are all party: Increasingly, the commonweal is under the stewardship not of governments, not of citizens, but of large companies.
In the old days, the stuff of politics was physical property. Most contests, including, of course, wars, were ultimately about real estate. But as more value has come to reside in ideas and networks, political (not just economic) power has begun to shift to the corporate entities that own or control access to intellectual property. In the future, wars over physical territory are likely to be reserved for losers and terrorists. Grabs of information are where the high stakes action is likely to be.
Another area where you've got to admit our government is on top of the trend: We Data Mine You Because We Care.
The trouble is, none of us, and in particular none of the vote-deprived Chinese, voted for Google. And yet to some degree we are all becoming subjects of Google. Through gmail, Google currently controls all of my email messages, and yes, I am kind of uncomfortable about that. I won't feel any better if Google ends up handing over search results to the Alberto Gonzalez Justice Department (Motto: We Put The Justification In Justice).
To protect democracy from creeping irrelevance, we're going to have to work out new mechanisms of citizenship. To some extent the free market gives me a "vote" on Google's behavior in that I can choose not to use gmail. But the market is not always all that free. To forego using all Google services would be to handicap myself, and if I wanted to vote similarly against Microsoft, I'd have a big problem.
Google may well occupy a Microsoftian position in the near future. Or rather, if Google is going to partner with entities like China, a position that could, in retrospect, make Microsoft look folksy.
Categories
Web
Comments (8)
Read More Entries by Spencer Critchley.
just to let you know
I found this article by searching on google.
Google and politics
Corporations have too much political influence, but that is not the fault of corporations. The US government can be -- and is -- bought because it has the power to hand out favors. Remove that power, return government to its essential function of protecting individuals rights only, and corporations will not be a threat to anyone.
I think an argument could even be made that the US government could and should stop Google from implementing censorship *anywhere* in the world.
'representative' web portal
Byline: "liberty, privacy, fraternity" ;-)
I agree -- it would probably remain a niche. Niches can be fun. OTOH, a coop requires a certain critical mass in order for it to benefit its members. I wonder where that point is?
It is also possible that the only people who would be interested in such a thing have already rolled their own, using their own servers. Reminds me of the puzzle about how to organize libertarians.
'representative' web portal
The major challenge I see is offering potential members a convincing reason to use the for-pay co-op portal instead of free portals from Google et al, i.e. the venture's Unique Sales Proposition. Maybe privacy would be enough--especially as the current services get more intrusive.
'representative' web portal
I didn't imagine it being a money-maker, but I suppose that could be possible. I imagined only shareholders would use the services, and they might not want to see ads, for example. Even if they did, advertisers might worry about users/shareholders clicking ads just for revenue.
I actually imagined that coop users would pay in every year. Its mission would be to simply maintain online servers and softare, which would hopefully require more admins than managers.
It would offer:
* web mail
* blog hosting
* photo hosting
* social bookmarking, calendar, etc.
* feed management
* backups and archiving
* and anything else its members needed (and it could afford)
It could even venture into:
* P2P
* dedicated/virtual hosting services
* VoIP
* wireless (Wi-Fi, etc.)
As its buying power grows, we could wangle discounts from paid content providers, such as Safari Online ;-) And maybe buy laptops in bulk.
The web services would use free software, and its developers would collaborate on the projects core to its mission.
Then there's all the cool people you'll meet. I imagine such a community would have very good vibes.
The more I write about it, the more plausible it seems. Hmmm... What do you think?
'representative' web portal
Fascinating idea. So, as with shareholders currently, users would hire a management team, and would share in profits?
'representative' web portal
Interesting piece.
Consider rolling out a web service portal that's organized as a cooperative. One user, one vote. That's what I offer in my piece, 'Free Software 2.0: Web Cooperatives?':
" ...
It just seems to me that as these services integrate more closely into our lives, the need for a stronger social contract increases. This isn't just about privacy, but also reliability and community. It would feel good to know that the service's management is working harder for the user than the shareholder (crazy!). In a cooperative, the user is the shareholder, so no worries."
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8029?wlg=yes
*cough* Corporate Republic *cough*
"To protect democracy from creeping irrelevance"
What democracy?
The US is a republic representing corporate interests. There's no representation for the "people."