If I leave the above aside for a moment though, isn’t it a positive thing to have a variety of information sources? Why, for example, has Google purchased one website: YouTube? Before Google purchased YouTube, YouTube could release videos as *it* saw fit – which was different to how Google would have seen it. Emails coming in from users would have been dealt differently by YouTube administrators than what they are by employees at Google. It does not require Google to be out and out evil for a monopoly on information distribution to be bad.

I own three completely separate English language dictionaries. Definitions for each word vary, even if just a little (and occasionally a fair amount), from one dictionary to the next. No one dictionary is perfect – and that is just the point. By having three and, when I want to, looking all three up, I can deepen my understanding of any given word. I, for one, consider that to be a good thing and I’m happy to go to the time and expense of continuing the way I have been. The only thing I don’t want is one dictionary publisher to take over others. In addition, by doing this, I provide the world with a service – an awareness which is unique to me and my personal interpretations. I receive peace of mind in that regard and that peace of mind is also of benefit to the world. Diversity is something which makes the whole darn lot of us stronger. I don’t want to be the sole arbiter on what words mean or on anything else; I want to be authentic within myself that my perceptions match the person that I am on the inside. It’d be nice if others did the exact same thing and, taken all together, life itself could then be enriched and broadened for each one of us.

It is worth noting that each dictionary has an entry for the word ‘google’ which refers to searching the internet (i.e. as well as the number). I even used it in my first paragraph above. That is one mother of a powerful company. Recently, I read an academic paper stating that paper based libraries are emptying themselves of books which are not being borrowed much. It is being done because of this all pervasive dogma regarding cost efficiency. What about the non-financial costs of losing access to knowledge? By sheer chance at a second hand bookstore, I once found a 1979 book on gardening. It is useful to have these things out there precisely because they are *not* current. It can be useful to know how we came to be where we are today by having access to material written decades ago. If a book is unpopular in terms of being borrowed, it can be all the more important to have it available. What happens if Google digitises all the information? It is a company. The interests of companies differ from the interests of society all the fricking time! All the time. If manufacturers can get away with disposing toxic chemicals in a river for no financial cost, many would do it. Many have done it.

Finally, this point about having “don’t be evil” as a mission statement. First, it points to just how much power Google, as a company, has amassed. Second, it is a mistake to have such a thing in your mind, let alone as a mission statement. I was talking to my sister once, years ago now. It was one of many discussions we have had about dealing in the world. For the first (and I hope the last) time, I blurted out “basically, don’t be a f*cktard”. It sounds brilliant in the first instance. It cuts through all the malarkey in the world and presents the whole thing in “beautiful”, plain, simple and basic words. If this is what you live by though, it eats away at you. You start thinking about it. You would probably wind up doing evil because you are so fixated on not doing it. I, for one, realised this as soon as it had come out of my mouth and I pretty much backed away from having said it straight away. Anyway, my sister and I are definitely cool but the point I am making is that, especially as mission statements go, it is best if you have them framed in a positive way i.e. what to *do* rather than what *not* to do.

Those are my thoughts. This documentary has its value (and, I might add, an enormous volume of it) in the fact that it explores an issue which is not often explored. I like to think that I am a very well read and knowledgeable person. People who know me seem to think so. I haven’t watched, read or even seen anything else which broaches the subject of Google’s effective monopoly within the world of searching the web. The documentary maker could have done a better job. Flatly telling someone that s/he is naive is not going to get them to open up or co-operate with you. If he wanted to present his own view so much, he could have done so away from any interviewee with just him in front of the camera. I have seen a wide variety of documentary-makers do this. In any case, I forgive him because, as I said, the documentary brings out an important issue and one which is seldom considered.

Regards,
Tom.
(email censored) by moderator, no personal emails, street address, phone numbers Tom.

After watching some of Adam Curtis’ docs (on this spectacular site – TDF), specifically ‘ The Trap’, I don’t think any companies truly care if you do. The economy was developed on the idea that we are selfish, constantly calculate and scheme against one another, and so we participate in the economy with these motivations.

This is a narrow minded view of the human being, no one is any one thing. The want to do good and to do well can coexist. It seems like the economy is slowly starting to accept this, and Google is a good example of it. I want to trust, so cautiously I do trust that they are legitimately trying to do no evil.

Bungie (the developers of Halo) is the only other company I have a similar feeling toward. Any one who knows of them probably knows what I mean.

I am a life like distruster of capitalism, but I am finding myself slowly changing my tune. I hope this is not too naive.

manipulate? you mean like catalog and analyze so they can sell a your time online to the right advertising demographic? Then you wont find a search engine bc that’s exactly what they all do. Remember, on the internet YOU are the product that is being used and sold. You use yahoo mail or gmail or hotmail? well all of your emails are scanned for keywords (the subject line gets read) and they all tell them a little more about who you are and what your plans are.