Tag Archives: Google

What the hell is Google actually doing to me??

Leave a reply

The unavoidable elephant in the room these days is that Google is deeply ingrained into all of our lives, with most humans using one or more of its services everyday. For awhile I’ve been hearing various opinions on the still growing media monolith, many of which have been unfavorable, but some that lauded the company for its innovative work in technology. And while these opinions may differ depending on the service or technology being critiqued, all of these seem to be asking the bigger question, what exactly is Google doing to our lives?

 

Google can sometimes seems as comfortable and familiar as one’s own skin, giving us the freedom to search for whatever information we want and allowing us to collaborate with others from our own home via their cloud services. Other times we hear about features that can actually frighten us a little bit, namely Google diagnosing your ailments via a few search queries. The way I see it, we can handle the inevitable rise of Google in two ways.

  1. We can succumb to Google in their rise to total media/technology domination. Let their powers dictate our lives and become nothing more than an accessory organ to their greater system.

or…

2. We can watch Google as it grows, take advantage of tools and                 services it provides while keeping ourselves informed about                   how to use these tools properly so they don’t use us.

Google is not an evil company per se. You could take isolated incidents from their career and push it whatever way you want. I’d like to think that at the end of the day they are an honest company who does want to help the world grow and expand, but understandably so, efforts of that magnitude always leads to some errors. So when I read articles like “Is Google Making us Stupid” or any article about a new service like self diagnosing, I immediately look at the advantages and disadvantages.

Yes. Google will make us stupid if we rely to heavily on it. When every question can be answered on a whim, it takes away the challenge of deduction. However, if used right Google provides the most comprehensive reference manual the world has to offer, and a resource like that is priceless. You could look at it like caffeine. We function well without it, and while we use it we seem to get a boost in activity and productivity. But be wary, for it will quickly become something to be relied upon, an addiction where you will wonder how you ever functioned normally without it. This could be the world we are heading to, but we could also take advantage of what were given with out abusing it. If google is treated in a respectful way we have much to gain from it, but ignoring those advantages because google is streamlining and simplifying processes is ignorant of our modern age. Google like any tool can be abused or utilized properly, and it is up to us to work hard and manage our usage of Google so that we stay as operators.

Digital Reflection-The Ethics of Google by Lauren Briggs

Leave a reply

Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 11.49.12 PM

For our final class, we looked into an article about the ethical implications of Google before starting on final presentations (http://www.fastcodesign.com/3058943/the-ux-of-ethics-should-google-tell-you-if-you-have-cancer). The article addressed the idea that, since Google has become a stronghold for information, perhaps it should be responsible for telling its searchers if they are drastically ill, just as it gives its users the information and links they have searched for. With the dramatic growth that Google has undergone, and its ability to give users answers millions of results in sometimes under a second, this article questions the ethical responsibilities that the search engine now has in order to inform its users of the implications of their searches. For example, if a user’s searches seem to imply symptoms of cancer, is Google morally obligated to contact this user and tell them that they may have a deadly disease?

In my opinion, it is not up to Google to tell its users what the implications of their searches are. Though Google has expanded into more than just a search engine, it has certainly not become a medical expert, and in my opinion, only medical experts are properly qualified to diagnose a disease or ailment. As stated in the article, “the evolution of Google’s Knowledge Graph is hardly the parallel to a doctor who spots a passenger’s melanoma on the subway.” The debate may be different if it regards an actual person who attended medical school and is trained to spot physical problems, but the answer is much more clear-cut when it involves a search engine and a company instead of an actual doctor. Just because Google has access to a wealth of information does not mean that it needs to diagnose its users based on how they use that information. Additionally, in class it was mentioned that making Google an official source for diagnosing or even just informing its users of their possible illnesses could morph into a business plan for Google, where the company makes even more money off of diagnosing users. Not only is this problematic because of the possibilities of getting it wrong (if Google misdiagnosed a user, it could certainly cause more harm and worry than good), but it is also a problem that Google, a corporation and not a medical professional, would be making money off of its users’ possible medical issues.

This article speaks to the larger scale to which technology is involved in our everyday lives, and the problems that this involvement can raise. I myself have looked on sites such as WebMD before, yet I would still largely prefer a doctor or other professional to be the one looking at my symptoms and officially diagnosing me if there were a problem. Additionally, giving Google the ability to diagnose illnesses would give the company even more power in the public’s life than it already has. I use Google everyday for my personal life, as well as for research for projects and assignments for classes. While these searches can sometimes reflect my interests and academic pursuits, I would much rather that this information not be compiled and stored to reflect an image of me for Google, even though our time in this class has shown that this is largely the case. Google already has a great deal of control over our lives, in terms of not just the information it provides as a search engine but also through its other offerings such as Gmail, Google Docs, and YouTube. These forums allow for collaboration but also increase the ways that we are being watched and monitored through the Internet. If Google were given the power to diagnose its users medically, I think this would be an unnecessary move that might benefit the company at the expense of its users.

Digital Reflection-Amazon and Google at UMass, by Lauren Briggs

Leave a reply

On April 13th, our homework and class discussions centered around Amazon and Google, and the effects that these corporations have had on the UMass campus and its students. A great deal of our discussion pertained to the disadvantages that Google and Amazon can bring, and the reasoning behind UMass partnering with these two companies.

One thing that stood out to me during these discussions was students’ comments on the fact that both Amazon and Google have risen to become wide-reaching companies, but both started out as small businesses. Particularly, I remember in elementary school that students were encouraged to use a variety of search engines to get the widest range of information. Theses search engines included Google, but also sites like Yahoo! and Ask Jeeves. Now, Google would be my first option for a search engine, and I wouldn’t consider using other sites, even if I couldn’t find exactly what I was looking for. I think that this speaks to the prevalence of Google, and the prominence it has risen to, even though it began as a smaller company. In the past, it was the smart thing to do to get sources and information from different search engines, because it meant a broader variety of that information. Now, I would be very surprised if any of my fellow students commonly used search engines other than Google.

In the same way, Amazon and Google have become the main places I go when I need to purchase something online. Recently, I have been purchasing some of my books for another one of my classes through Google Play, which offers certain texts as Ebooks, available to purchase and read on my computer. As mentioned in the podcast about the implementation of Amazon at UMass, the use of Amazon instead of an on-campus bookstore was seen as a detriment to the bookstores in the town of Amherst. While I agree with the idea of supporting a small, local business like Amherst Books, buying and reading my books online is an easier option. For me, it is much faster to purchase a book through Google Play and start reading it instantly, rather than taking a bus into town and buying the book in person.

One of the reasons I like using Google Play is that it has most of the books I am looking to buy and read, which is a feature shared by Amazon. What I appreciate about Amazon is that they have almost everything available for purchase, so whether I am looking at textbooks or Christmas gifts, I’m usually bound to find what I am looking for, or at least something similar. It is for this reason that I use Amazon so much-I am practically guaranteed to find what I need every time I go to the site, just like I am usually bound to find a book through Google Play or a site with information I need through a Google Search. Google and Amazon have a lot to offer, which is personally what draws me to them.

While Amazon and Google do have the advantage of being convenient options for their customers, I do find it somewhat disturbing that we depend on these options so much. While I would appreciate having other sources of information and consumer products, the fact does remain that Google and Amazon are some of the most convenient and wide-reaching options available to me as a UMass student. In this way, I think it is doubtful that we as a society might return to a time where students used multiple search engines, and not just Google, or when Amazon was still a fledgling company. Unless other corporations engage in making their information and products as widely and as easily available as Google and Amazon, I can only see their success building in the future, for both UMass students and society as a whole.

Panic! at the Hospital

Leave a reply

I believe that in our capitalist society it is just a matter of time before Google is giving each and every person medical advice, I made this idea apparent in class but I think that it could use a bit of building upon here. This is of course all built upon the article shared on the Twitter page. The article touches upon the ethical side of false positives in Google’s model of giving out information, but I can’t look at this idea as something that companies would shy away from. Admitting that I am very biased against large corporations and their complete lack of morals, I think that pharmaceutical companies would thrive on the idea of false positives. It serves a high profit margin to have an overabundance of people coming in and getting tested, as you are able to charge each of these people through the nose. Even if only one out of ten people ends up being a positive, false or otherwise, that person then becomes a cash cow that can be returned to time and time again, until they’re dead or cured.

“You have to consider, the number of false positives you get could be enormous…” the article says about this topic, which I can’t imagine companies trying to avoid. The only thing the companies would need to worry about is losing customer loyalty, which is negated by the idea of Google making medical predictions. If this is the case then a basic structure of our society becomes one that at it’s core creates panic. Everyone could be as upset by the fact that Google is making twenty false positives, but the second everyone sees the article of someone’s life being saved by the technology it plants the idea of “that could be me”. In essence this would force everyone to buy into a system that has a small chance of saving their life, but a larger chance of being a financial burden. If this were to become common practice it would create a nation of hypochondriacs that would feed into itself until that ideology became the norm.

Even with my so obviously biased opinion I am forced to look at the other side of the ethical question; are the lives saved by this technology enough to make up for the economic strain that is put on the society? It is all a matter of the scale with which you look at things. On the small scale most people are willing to take any measure to ensure their loved ones live as long as possible, and if this technology were to save someone close to you there is no way you would be against it. But on the grand scale would it make life extremely more difficult for future generations, as the economy would be ravaged by massive influx of income into the medical sector that largely feeds into very few pockets. Personally I think the well being of many outdoes the lives of the few, so I advocate for this technology to not be integrated, but it seems an unfortunate unavoidably.

Is Google Evil?

Leave a reply

images-3
The list of issues with Google is nearly endless but interestingly, their slogan is, “Don’t be evil.” When reviewing all of these things that cause me to become skeptical about this company, I start to wonder if their motto is merely ironic. The aspects of Google that we have yet to uncover are those most concerning. In my opinion, there are many questions that the public will never get an answer to. The most crucial of these is privacy.

Almost everyone I know, including myself, uses Google for their daily inquiries above Bing, Yahoo!, and any other search engine combined. The convenience and speed of looking up anything and everything we may need to know has become priceless. Does this mean that we’re willing to utilize Google at any cost? Before reading about “Google controversies,” I never took into consideration how much information I was feeding Google. Typing a keyword into the search bar on my laptop really does not take too much thought. Unfortunately, this lack of thought could lead to many problems down the road.

Google saves all of my searches so that my search results in the future are better customized. Another feature that is meant to make my life more convenient is autofill. My name, address, phone number, etc. are stored so that I can generate them rather than redundantly filling in this criteria myself. These features are often viewed as beneficial because of how much easier they make our lives. The key question concerning all of this is the storage of our person preferences and information.

Google’s privacy policy states that they use information they collect “to offer [us] tailored content – like giving [us] more relevant search results and ads.” The company shares this information with all of Google’s “affiliates,” although there is no list provided to clarify exactly which entities this includes. (We could safely assume that AdSense is one of them though.) Our information is given to these third parties for processing reasons. There are also several other times that their policy says Google may share information. Most of this has to do with governmental and legal reasons. While the rationale may seem sound and the policy transparent enough, there is still some skepticism to be had due to accountability.

If we want to use Google, we have no other choice but to trust their policies and trust the company with our information. Even if everything in the privacy policy looks to our liking, there is the question of whether or not these are the exchanges of information that are actually occurring. Unfortunately, there is no oversight board that is looking out for the best interests of the consumer. Google has essentially expanded into a monopoly that has almost no accountability regarding their practices.

So, is Google evil?

This question brings up the main issue once again: there is so much that we don’t know. I do not think we can really distinguish whether or not Google is evil without the full picture. Of course, one could try to make this determination based on the information that is provided to us but the conclusion may be largely inaccurate. We may never be able to answer whether or not Google is evil because we may never know the company’s true practices.

 

Platforms; Essential and Horrifying

Leave a reply

Platforms exist in a fantastic way in our society. As a way of being an essential form in our society, but terrifyingly influential in the way our country works. Through the readings I came across several questions for how platforms work, and mainly my curiosity was struck with the idea that platforms could cause controversy with how powerful they are. The big four platforms especially having so much control of the market,

 

While platforms provide essential services to us in terms of how practical and simple they are to use. Imagining my life without Google docs or Gmail at this point is a simply horrifying idea. I can’t imagine going back to the days of AOL and AIM, they we’re simply too complicated and bulky compared to the streamlined and unified subsets of Google. Google has such power over our current society, as it is such a unified construct, which allows more people to collaborate and work together on various projects. This simple factor of having a completely unified system that is accessible anywhere there’s Internet access.

 

The main focus of my interest however lied within the idea of Amazon. The discussions on Amazon in class, as well as the various examples of Amazon during our readings raised questions about how useful. I came to the conclusion that Amazon, as a platform in our culture is crucial at this point. For various reasons it’s so important, including the fact that it offers cheap access to content, with quick and affordable shipping. Especially with Amazon Prime, as by offering a cheaper alternative for students with the aspect of Amazon Prime they offer students an alternative and altogether cheaper way to get textbooks, entertainment, even food! At cheaper prices, and with free shipping, to be honest my experience with it has been stellar. It has saved me money and has made my life so much easier in terms of finances. Knowing the pluses of the platform first hands lends my opinions to lean towards the fact that platforms are an important aspect of our evolving society.

 

With Google’s simplistic, welcoming and unified system the ability for us to collaborate and integrate more people through a virtual space is a critically important aspect to today’s online presence. While Amazon offers access to cheap, and accessible products, especially with Amazon Student, offering cheaper access to textbooks, textbook rentals, and entertainment, all with fast shipping. Platforms have been involved with multiple scandals, however they always seem to be problems with them trying to make more content available to consumers. For example Amazon’s Kindle service provided books at a cheaper price compared to their print counterparts. While this puts the publishing industry in danger there is no downside to us as consumers, as it provides the same exact content for a much cheaper price. Platforms can be problematic, especially with the danger they present as being incredibly close to being monopolies. These facts considered, the benefits of platform far outweigh the negatives, and while they should be monitored, they are an integral part of our society, as they make our lives easier.

 

droneamazonmeme

 

Also Amazon Drones.

The Gang of Four: Do they mean well?

Leave a reply

As a person who can find the positive in all sides, I am indecisive in the debate of whether these big platforms are helping bring people together or forcing us to communicate less.

“At a very high level, platforms simply allow people to reach and connect with one another” (22). I understand this quote, and I can apply it to a platform like Facebook in a positive light, that it has allowed for international communication that could otherwise not be possible. I can connect with people that I met in Europe very easily. People with the same last name as I that live in Italy have reached out to me in the past in efforts to communicate. While this is all well and good, it has equally provided a source of miscommunication as people check their Facebooks via their smartphones while in the physical company of other humans, aimlessly scrolling through their newsfeed, refraining from indulging in conversation or other humanly interactions.

The reading discussed using ‘can’ versus ‘must’ when talking about the usage of these platforms, which I found interesting to think about. Consumers have the choice to use these platforms, they are not forced into them.. but are we? I recently just read the post by a peer that the Textbook annex is being forced out and is automatically signing students up for Amazon Prime. Some media classes force us to use big platforms (Twitter). I can foresee that even resumes will become void as more and more companies rely on LinkedIn. So I think in a way we are subconsciously being forced into these platforms. Yes, we do have the choice to use them and I know people without Facebook, but they are not completely unplugged from the gang of four. One of these platforms is utilized. Also we are just taught that this is the easiest way of doing things. The idea of the negative and dangerous effects are not learned or discussed, so I do not think we really are given a choice to refrain from using them.

“We consumers don’t have to buy anything on Amazon, much less everything” (28).

My thoughts on monopolies:

“The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a monopoly as ‘the exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action” (30).

Market dominance and product process dominance is where I feel uncomfortable. I think dominance is the key word here, I’m not the biggest fan of any sort of dominance applied to mostly anything.

I know the reading explains that platforms are not monopolies given pricing power, competition factors, elastic demand, etc. That platforms are not aiming to become monopolies, but I still do not agree with a soul company eating up other other companies by buying them out. This means that they control so much of the cash flows of the economy and that doesn’t sit right with me. It’s economically unsustainable and makes the gang of four too powerful in that sense. It makes me feel like consumers no longer even have a choice of where they are investing their money.

I guess what it comes down to is the unsettling feeling of not wanting the world to completely switch over to a virtual world despite the convenience. Nothing ever translates well through text and virtual communication. Emotion is somewhat lost and I think that is an important piece to humanity. So while Amazon and platforms like it are pushing out bookstores, society will continue to lose out on human interaction and build stronger and stronger relationships with their technology screens and website faces.

Great Googly Moogly

Leave a reply

What was once a search engine developed by two PhD graduates in Stanford, California has evolved into a cultural icon and one of the world leaders in technological innovation. GoogleMaps and GoogleEarth changed the way we saw and navigated the world, GoogleTranslate saved the careers of countless high school and college students, GoogleDocs redefined what it meant to put together group presentations “at the last minute” and GooglePlus showed us that even the best fall down sometimes. They have managed to buy out Youtube and even wiggle their way into the Oxford Dictionary. Now that they have dominated the web, they are setting their sights on the physical world by investing in new projects such as self driving cars, balloons that provide Wifi (Project Loon), GoogleGlass, and broadband connections (Google Fiber). They are finding ways to reach out and include everyone into their community and transcend the lines between the digital and physical world. You know your company is special when people find ways to incorporate it into their Halloween outfits.

Google

 

 

With all this increased convenience comes a price. We have to take a step back and ask ourselves what are willing to pay for privacy? Unfortunately that is not a question we can avoid anymore. In light of the NSA wiretapping scandal, we are able to catch a glimpse of what our privacy really means to the government. Using the Patriot Act, the government is allowed to collect our browsing history, emails, metadata, etc. They don’t need any legal justification to do so either because its in the sake of “national security”. Any questions pertaining what how much information they are collecting and what they are using it for is “classified”. It really speaks volumes about a nation when they charge a whistle-blower (Edward Snowden) for treason and do nothing to the NSA for blatantly disregarding our Constitutional Rights. There is no one holding them accountable so they continue to abuse their power. We are in an age where nothing online is  truly secure. Some people argue that if we don’t agree with the guidelines companies like Google operate by, we should just look for different options. The only problem is that many companies are adopting similar policies and none of these policies hold them accountable for leaking user information. They say that they will keep your information safe yet there isn’t any government intervention that forces them to compensate their victims. If there is a security breach they simply issue a public apology and move on with their lives. If the NSA asks for it, they simply hand it over without notifying you.

Staying away from the Internet is not something that you will be able to do for long because it is only a matter of time before you are forced to assimilate. Job applications are a common example. In the past you were able to apply to jobs in person as long as you had an application and resume. Nowadays Fortune 500 companies such as Target, Walmart, etc. are only accepting online applications. Few and fewer companies are listing job openings in the newspapers (because everything is online now) so you will need to create a profile and upload your resume/cover letter to apply. Ebooks and Kindles are becoming more and more common while libraries are receiving less funding and independent bookstores become slowly phased out due to companies like Amazon. If you wish to order something online you are forced to login with your credit card, address, name, etc. The impact of the Internet becomes more prevalent  in our lives each day.

During this time, I think we need to ask ourselves where its power comes from relative to Langdon Winner’s concepts of social determination of technology, social determination of technology, and naive technological determinism. Does it gain power through the social and economic systems in which it is embedded? Or does it mold society to fit its patterns? It’s important to keep these things in mind. We attribute certain characteristics to these technical artifacts and develop emotional connections with them. In the long run it can lead to dependency. Ask yourself how long can you go without checking social media? It can make us feel a certain way or believe a certain point of view because the messages we receive flow through a medium which they control. Facebook’s social experiment was a perfect example of this. When it was revealed to the public, there was a great amount of outrage. Many of my friends vowed that they would delete their Facebooks…but never did. It’s an addiction that we need to be conscious of because we are all sacrificing something to get our fix.

Opt-out? When did I ever opt-in?

Leave a reply

When you think of Google, what do you think of? Convenience? Sure. Results? Absolutely. If we’re being honest, Google is there for you more often than even the closest of friends. When you need something, where do you turn first? If you’re anything like me, just “Google it!” Move over, Nike. People aren’t into doing anymore, they’re into googling. 

It’s true, the majority of us have been “googlized.” It’s a noun, it’s a verb, it’s integrated in every part of our lives. Long gone are the days of a simple search engine. Now there’s search and scholar and gmail and maps and doodle and all of these incredible applications brought to you by, none other than, Google. I like to think of Google and all of its popular features similar to Apple and it’s products — they all work and run together with a similar interface, they sync with each other via iCloud, and the possibilities for what you can do with these products are seemingly ENDLESS. What could be the harm in that?

The biggest thing that struck me from the readings this week was the issue of privacy and how little of it we have. It seems that the more Google does for us in everyday life, the less control we have over what stays private. It’s a trade-off; Yes, you want Google to sync your information and know your location and help you with whatever task you may come across, but in exchange for its services it needs and collects specific information on you that you can’t necessarily take back.

One example: Say you’re writing a research paper on sloths. You find all of these amazing articles and as you’re doing your research, you realize you forgot to cite something. How are you going to find that article again?! You can’t remember what you searched for to get that particular result and you need it NOW. Well have no fear, Google knows what you’ve searched for and more often that not it will bring you back to that, or related, search results because of the cookies in your browser.

But did you give Google permission to keep track of your online activity? With Google’s technology, are you ever even offline? Well Google user, you’d know this if you ever read the constantly-changing privacy policy and terms of use. People tend to skip over the daunting legal contracts presented to them when they sign up for particular services or use certain softwares. The default settings for such sites usually allow for maximum access to information. In order to change these settings and have any say in what Google has access to, users must “opt-out” of certain setting configurations.

So I guess the biggest question I have is, when did we ever opt-in?

 

Take it from our friends of South Park, ALWAYS read before agreeing to anything:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglZGSwK6ow[/youtube]

 

A Conditional Love Letter to Google

Leave a reply

My beloved Google,

i-love-google

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways:

  • Through your wonderful email service, GMail, though I’m usually accessing it through Apple Mail. When I do use my computer to access your email service, I find it so clean and streamlined and easy to follow a conversation. How did I ever use someone else? Why would I ever leave?
  • By using your search engine, which knows me so well. How many Wikipedia entries have you led me to? How many research projects have you made infinitely easier? How many times have you saved me in a conversation when I need a quick reminder? How many arguments have you ended among my friends? Clearly, this is your best venture by far.
  • Through Google Translate, which has saved my ignorance many times.
  • In your Maps function, where you can’t get my home address right but you can always tell me how to plan road trips to faraway locations. Thank you for taking traffic into perspective, giving an actual perspective of how long it will take me to get somewhere. You’ve also taken notice of the PVTA bus schedule, which makes planning my Five-College adventures easier.
  • By checking out your adorable doodles, which almost hides the fact that you’re an enormous corporation using my data for unknown purposes.
  • In using Chrome, which is by far the best browser (even though I use Safari because of its convenience on my iPhone.) Chrome is beautiful. It’s simple. It comes with a bunch of extensions that make it great.
  • By creating the Chromebook, which I don’t actually use, but is beautiful and wonderful and if I ever went back from Mac, I would take you on.

Ah, but Google, there are also some things you need to work on if we want this relationship to work.

google-hate-300x219

  • Sometimes you’re like that friend that’s awesome to hang out with because you have connections and everything, but I don’t want to tell you everything because you’re not very good at keeping secrets. I know about your obsessive needs for surveillance. All your web-crawling and data mining efforts follow me around the Internet. I know the data that you have on me – it’s not incriminating or anything, but it’s still a little creepy. But I’m worried that if you don’t stop taking in data, it’s going to end badly for the both of us.
  • I know you’re not always loyal. I know about the others – and by others, I obviously mean the media conglomerates. I see it when you’re misrepresenting my search results. I see the targeted advertising on the side. We can manage, but you’re going to have to cut back on seeing them.
  • Your Books feature is failing as a library. Yes, there are concerns about your copyrights issues and digital issues, but your focus on being a search engine and your lack of concern for metadata makes it difficult for Google Books to function as a research repository. It makes me so angry.
  • Creating and saving files in Docs and Drive (respectively) isn’t actually that good or useful. I mean, it’s convenient for classwork occasionally, but the application needs work if you want it to be functional. It’s actually a pain to use sometimes, and it’s difficult to organize my files the way I want to. I’m still sticking with Microsoft on this one.
  • Google News. I’ve tried to use this service a few times, but it’s never really worked for me. You can find a number of articles, but maybe I’m looking for something too specific.
  • Google+. Stop trying to make Google+ happen. It’s not going to happen. Just buy out Facebook or something. Or Twitter. You can totally buy out Twitter. I’m fine with that.
  • I’m really not a fan of you owning YouTube. It makes me uncomfortable, although I don’t know why. I guess YouTube is a creative field for me (as we’ll get to next week) and I’m worried that you won’t respect that.

Google, you’re a huge part of my life. I don’t think I can ever let you go. But that doesn’t mean I trust you blindly. I understand that at the end of the day, you’re a machine. I know that your functionality, while normally clean and pure, can be disorganized in some ways. I know that your goal of leading me to an enlightened future is often muddled in capitalism. I know you’re trying not to be evil, but you’re certainly not good. 

You’re not mine – you’re just my access point through which I interpret the Internet. You belong to something much bigger than me. And while I have to accept your faults at times, it doesn’t make me very happy.

Occasionally yours,

Emily

Discussion Questions 2/11

Leave a reply

1. Where should the line be drawn as far as sacrificing privacy for customization and ease of access?

2. What do you think about Google’s choice regarding the service it offers in China? Should it allow itself to be subject to censoring? Where and to what degree should internet companies interact with government agencies?