Defining Google is difficult. Some say it’s just a search engine. Some say it’s an incredibly ingenious way to categorize and rank public interest. Still others assert that it’s a monster that’s out to get us all.
I, however, would define Google not by its makers, but by its users. The question is not what Google gets from us, but what we get from Google. Google gives people information. Actually, Google gives people ways to get information. Do we have to choose the first listing we get from a search? No. The search engine does not give information, but links to it. The messenger, if you will, that doesn’t wish to be persecuted for the news it delivers.
Jorge, the author of this article, in my opinion, gives the Google monster more credit than it’s worth. While technology might enable those who collect data and histories from the search engine to make aggregate assumptions about the general public, the assertion that they can make the “step from search words to human intention” is a bit dramatic. Though his depth of thought is interesting, I am left wondering what the point is! Does it matter that they know what we’re looking for?
The validity of Internet mediums is always precarious. However, I would argue that it is not the Internet giant itself that needs to be reigned in (in fact, I don’t know how one would go about that) but that it is becoming more and more necessary to encourage people to work harder. With the novelty of the easiness of using the Internet to get information, people have gotten lazy. The short answer to this writer’s very long concern is: maybe we should shelve the concern that Google is “a vicious cycle pushing popularity ad nauseam.” There are most important things to worry about. World hunger? Now that’s a relevant concern.
