But even if you take Google at their word and accept that their intentions are pure, could naïve application of the Don't Be Evil ethic unintentionally cause Evil results?
Don't Be Evil is about upholding the public trust by avoiding conflicts of interest. As long as Google is a disinterested third party when presenting information, the "Switzerland of search results", then Google has done its job. And Google puts its money where its mouth is, refusing to accept advertising dollars to influence search results. Instead, Google uses the Web's links to automatically determine what's important.
But as Google is getting bigger and more important in the lives of hundreds of millions of people, is being Switzerland enough? At Google's shareholders' meeting last week, CEO Eric Schmidt said:
Larry and Sergey founded the company with a simple but brilliant mission: organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful...the world's information, not just the U.S.; information, not just the Web; 'universally' means for everyone, everywhere; accessible means on every device.As Google promises to extend its benevolent technology beyond the Web and to "everyone, everywhere" and "on every device," doesn't that mean that Google intends to be as pervasive an information source on TV as it is on the Web? A world of Google TV, with access to millions of independent feeds, all ranked without bias by computer, sure seems better than the limited-choice corporate sandbox that is today's TV -- doesn't it?
But would Google's agnostic media engine really be better for humanity? The noir vision of the Google Grid (8-minute Flash presentation, very well done) was developed a couple years ago, and Google's new products since then seem to fit pretty well into that dark vision of the near future. In the Google Grid, traditional news media is dead, replaced by millions of individuals subscribing to each other's content. While this works well for an elite few, the net effect is to replace thoughtful reporting and analysis with tabloid sensationalism for most of humanity.
Bill Moyers warned last year that independent journalism, which holds the powers of government and corporations in check, was in danger of dissolving. And whichever way you lean politically, his latest remarks yesterday should be read or heard by anyone who cares about the future of spirited democratic debate. You can get an mp3 of his remarks here (thanks onegoodmove.)
Moyers accuses the mainstream press of capitulating to the powers that be instead of holding them accountable. He says the New York Times has become the stenographer for the government instead of critically examining the administration's claims.
Would a GoogleWorld improve on this by giving people more choices than today's big media outlets that have been co-opted by corporate and government powers? Or would Google's "TrustRank" empower the big guys and the tabloids even more than today's structure?
One blogger may have exposed Dan Rather's sloppy reporting, and the GoogleWorld empowered that blogger (which is good). But can we reliably determine trusted news sources by calculation or does it require judgment? Can citizen reporters really obtain the access and resources they need for in-depth investigative journalism? If not, the GoogleWorld may perversely allow for greater state and corporate control of what most people see and read (which is Evil).
The "Don't Be Evil" philosophy uses the word "Evil" almost whimsically. Google's "Don't Be Evil" isn't concerned with real Evils like genocide, hunger or war (though they may set up a foundation to pursue global poverty and environmental issues). Instead, "Don't Be Evil" is about commercial evils.
Wouldn't it be ironic if Google's honorable but naïve intentions resulted in an object lesson in the banality of evil by accelerating the destruction of what little authentic journalism we have left?