Can companies be „not evil“

We all know that Googles motto is "Don't be evil". They claim that alt­hough they are admit­tedly out to make money, there are moral bar­ri­ers they won’t break.

That’s fine and dandy, but…

  • Page­rank is obviously a very power­ful tool when it comes to actually affect peo­p­les minds (People rarely scroll to the 3rd page of results. Put infor­ma­tion you want to keep out of peo­p­les minds there, instead on page 1, and no one will bother.)
  • They are capable gathe­ring a slew of per­so­nal infor­ma­tion wit­hout us noti­cing. Who knows, if at some point in time, someone gets tempted ?
  • Mono­poly: Alre­ady a majo­rity of inter­net users only use google. If it would be gone right now, I would be sorely han­di­cap­ped. What if they sud­denly charge money, or use this for poli­ti­cal leverage ?

The list of con­cerns could be made lon­ger and lon­ger. So, there is a defi­nite dan­ger, des­pite what Google claims.


On the other hand,

Google actually is making my life a lot easier: Google Mail (or gmail, is it is legally known outs­ide ger­many) is sim­ply the best web­mail ser­vice I’ve encoun­tered. Actually, I find it bet­ter than my locally instal­led MS Out­look (off­line fla­vour). Google Maps is so cool it defies descri­bing it (and I can’t even use it to the fullest extend, as I’m mis­sing all the extra infor­ma­tion with diners, etc in my location).

And of course I belong to that majo­rity that regu­larly uses Google to find wha­te­ver I need to find on the net — successfully.

Still, occa­sio­nally, small worries over­come me: What if Google sud­denly deci­des to mis-use what they know over me ? Per­haps they are alre­ady sel­ling files with my beha­viour data to data miners ? Or worse: What if someone deci­des to con­struct some­thing wildly accu­satory out of this data, and gets me into trou­ble with the law ? (As Scott Adams once poin­ted out in one of this Dil­bert books: Ever­yone of us has done wrong some­thing, be it cros­sing a red traf­fic light, chea­ting with the tax or for­get­ting to get a valid bus ticket. We all belong into pri­son really.)

Then I read my favou­rite computer magazine, and find them men­tio­ning a pro­duct that wat­ches my work, and auto­ma­ti­cally shows use­ful web links in a side win­dow. Magi­cally, wit­hout me actually doing any search. Right now for example, it might show me links to the EFF, or to some tech­no­logy arti­cle detailing what data about me Google can retrieve and what it couldn’t . This cer­tainly sounds like a very cool con­cept. I might even pay money for that.

Which brings me back to the start of this entry: We’ve grown used to the fact that most infor­ma­tion and ser­vices on the inter­net are free. Google, news­si­tes, map ser­vices, dic­tio­na­ries, etc. I’m right now using a free brow­ser (Fire­fox), and a free blog soft­ware (Seren­di­pity) to create this blog entry.

When I stum­ble with some­thing, I’ll fire up www​.google​.com or surf to heise​.de to check some tech­ni­cal fact — all free of charge.

But behind most of these ser­vices are real com­pa­nies, that put out real money to create these. Not because the are nice to me, but because they have some sort of busi­ness model that makes them think that ulti­mately they’ll earn money by doing this.

Cur­rently, most of this money comes from adver­ti­sing. Com­pa­nies offer some free ser­vice and finance this by adding adver­ti­sing on their pages.

At least for Google, this actually seems to work. Alt­hough I have to admit, I’m still scep­ti­cal: I for sure never click on these links. Actually, I mostly don’t even see them, as I have the Adblock exten­sion for Fire­fox installed.

So at least in my case, the busi­ness model is bust; I use the free ser­vice, but give not­hing in return, and don’t see or click the ads. If all Inter­net users would be like me (which they pro­bably aren’t), adver­ti­sing would stop being a source of revenue.

I can only guess that many com­pa­nies offe­ring „free“ inter­net ser­vices are alre­ady com­ing to a simi­lar con­clu­sion. News sites often „lock“ older arti­cles, and only make them avail­able to those who pay for them. Those who don’t often demand a „free“ regis­tra­tion instead (or addi­tio­nally even).

One has to ask: Why ?

Two rea­sons spring to mind:

  1. it sca­res away some of the pos­si­ble rea­ders, as they don’t want to regis­ter. This saves band­with, ie costs.
  2. they want to collect and exploit the data from the regis­te­red users.

    Sca­ring away users is pro­bably not the rea­son, as it’s silly: For a suc­cess­ful web­site, it’s all about get­ting more users.

So we’re stuck with the other rea­son. Gathe­ring and then using data about users com­mer­ci­ally. Which is kinda scary, don’t you think ? Of course, there are many things one can do at this point if one is a com­pany that wants to make money out of user data. Some of those things are pro­bably even quite acceptable.

But a lot of things might involve spam­mers, insurance com­pa­nies that want to cut costs, lawy­ers, and other unsavoury things. Things that the aver­age libe­r­ally min­ded neti­zen puts into the „evil“ cate­gory. So who gua­ran­tees that Google won’t turn evil when the ad reve­nues are get­ting slim ?

Or what hap­pens when an evil min­ded govern­ment excer­ci­ses pres­sure on the de facto mono­po­list for Inter­net Sear­ches and forces them to cen­sor content ?

That said, I con­ti­nue being opti­mistic. For now, I like, and trust, Google.

Keine Kommentare

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird niemals weitergegeben.Erforderliche Felder sind mit einem * markiert.