Several people have said that my posts on the Google memory hole were too picky, or fell far short of the "evil" threshold. Fair points.
Just to be clear, I don't pretend that the edits to inconsequential posts on the Google Blog qualify as matters of national security. I do believe that if Google intends to become the guardian of the world's information, they'll need to do more than say, "Trust us." They need to demonstrate in the little things that they care about the integrity of information, and the big things will follow.
It's perfectly OK for individual bloggers to make whatever changes they want. It's their site, and it's up to the reader to determine how much to trust each individual. Likewise, institutional bloggers won't violate the public trust when they make minor edits to format and spelling if the meaning and context do not change.
But Google is a special case. They've set the expectation very high for themselves. They say they intend to adhere to the principles of a "well run newspaper." If Google want to be the guardians of the world's information, they should demonstrate a fastidious attention to the integrity of that information, especially when Google is the author.
In contrast, Microsoft doesn't pretend to have a "Don't Be Evil" policy, and I don't make a fuss when Microsoft flushes information down the memory hole. I don't even make much of a deal about Microsoft
censoring content in China. It's wrong, but I just don't expect anything more of them -- I don't trust them like I trust Google.
Google claims they're an unconventional company, run as much by principle as to meet quarterly earnings targets. They're banking on a higher level of trust to achieve their goal to organize the world's information. Google profits from the trust in the Google brand.
I don't think it's asking too much for Google to acknowledge their errata. When they need to correct a factual error in something they've published, they should do so just as a well-run newspaper would. If they need to
alter a photo or remove content that was previously published, it should be noted.
Information is power. For centuries powerful people have censored, rewritten, and altered information to control populations. Orwell's book 1984, which
coined the term "memory hole," was a satire on how powerful people control language and information to subjugate populations. As the world's information and media repository, Google has a moral obligation to ensure their technology is used for good.
Google should demonstrate that they care about the integrity of the world's information as much as a well-run newspaper cares about the integrity of its journalism. A good first step would be to take care of the little things -- track changes, acknowledge errata and show that there is no Google memory hole.
