Summary:
"The Search Party: Google squares off with its Capitol Hill critics" is an article by Ken Auletta, published in early 2008 in The New Yorker. In this article, Auletta discusses Google's new presence in the political arena to an audience curious about Google's growing influence. Although Google was a multi-billion dollar company for several years in the early 21st century, Google was never very politically active. It was not until Google's founders realized the potential harm that could be done to their company by not having political influence that they decided to establish a substantial Washington, D.C. office. Google's stated mission as a company is "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (1). The main problem with making "information" your company's main "product," is that other companies own most, if not all of that information, creating conflict. With Google's extension of their company beyond Search, they have caused alarm within severaldifferentindustries. Many of these companies have called for an anti-trust case to be brought against Google, but no case has been substantiated thus far.
Closely tied with Google's Search is their advertising: AdWords and AdSense. These extremely successful advertising efforts have allowed Google to nearly surpass the combined advertising revenues of the major television boradcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, & Fox). When Google wanted to acquire DoubleClick, an online advertising giant, anti-trust flags were waved, but eventually put down after Google successfully acquired this company in mid 2008 (a few months after this article was published) [Source]. Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, claims "the more Google knows about a user the better the search results" (4). Critics of Google worry that there is danger in a company that depends on advertising to collect so much data on consumers through their searches. In other words, many people worry about privacy issues with Google, but Google has taken steps to lessen the worry. Searches are stored on Google servers for 18 months (lessened from 24 months previously).
The article claims that Google will need to manage itself as a company, deciding whether it will continue to get "you to what you want as fast as you can and getting out of the way ... or will it become 'a source of content, a platform, a destination?'” (5). Recently, Google has expressed interest in the cell phone market, but has yet to lead in this industry. Schmidt, in response to critics, argues that what "kills a company is not competition but arrogance. We control our fate” (7).
Inquiry:
Google is a company that is trying to take over the world, and they seem to be succeeding. It is hard to name a new media industry or market that Google does not influence. It is interesting comparing Google's image to other companies such as Microsoft. Microsoft, a technology company, states that its mission " is to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential" [Source]. This mission does not sound much different from Google's mission, but yet Google is nearly revered as a company while Microsoft is just trying not to be hated. I would argue that Google is looked at differently by consumers because their products are generally viewed as free. From my personal experience, many people cite the high cost of software as a reason for their dislike of Microsoft. When you have a company like Google that is giving equivalent resources that are perceived as free, "free" will always win (in a popularity contest at least). Consumers would prefer to "pay" for software by the searches they perform and ads they see instead of a direct monetary transaction.
Google's value lies most in what it is able to discern about its users. As the recent Google Super Bowl commercial displayed, our searches tell a story:
Many consumers worry that this knowledge could be used in negative ways, but others point to Google's motto of "Don't be Evil," and trust that Google will not misuse this information. This trust is vital for Google's success as a company. Without consumer trust, Google will have nothing. This information that they gather is very valuable when speaking about advertising. As an example, Facebook has been valued at nearly $11 billion dollars, not because of its great success at turning a profit, but because investors know that information Facebook users put on their profiles is an advertiser's dream come true. Facebook, as well as Google, are able to use information about users to create targeted ads, making them more valuable to potential advertisers.
Questions:
Google is thriving in this new media world without an end in sight. Do you foresee a point in the future when Google will reach a "breaking point" because of their involvement in such a wide variety of industries? Or, does this scattered involvement ensure their success as a financially stable company for the future?
Many consumers worry about the information that Google collects. Do you believe this worry is validated?
Google is currently an 11 year old company, but yet their earnings rival the GDP of small nations. What do you believe made Google such a successful company in such a short amount of time?
Summary
The Hacker Manifesto is a piece written by Adam L. Beberg, who's information can be found by clicking on the small icon at the bottom of the manifesto. an example of our old topic of hypertext. This piece attempts to explain what a hacker really is by providing definitions of a hacker through hypertext (the word 'hacker'). Beberg enlightens the world, so to speak, on the mindset of a hacker, and how society has come to look down upon such people. Beberg seems to think that the world is quite misguieded about hackers, and attempts to straighten out people's view of them through his manifesto, and through hypertext links to his personal career in academia and professional life.
Inquiry
This work is by far one of my favorites of the year. It was fun to read, and very interesting. I, myself, have a view of hackers as the "scum" of the internet out there, out there to steal information and gain an edge illegally. Beberg seems to have set me a little straighter. Dictionary.com even defines a hacker as "a computer enthusiast" (dictionary.reference.com/browse/hacker). By viewing hackers in this way, I think we can better understand a social circle that exists, often right under our noses, in the world today. People like Richard Stallman could be considered hackers, as defined by Beberg and by dictionary.com. It seems that there is an entire world of hackers out there who consider themselves the elite of programming and computer knowledge. I find this fascinating, and would love to do more research on this topic. I think that the links Beberg has in his manifesto to his own personal information, including his resume, add to the credibility of this article, giving a so called face to the name type of effect. I think it's important more hackers attempt to convey to the world their true nature so that we may better understand their point of view, and what they seem to truly be about. I commend Beberg for his work, and again would love to see more like this.
1) What was your view of "hackers" before you read this manifesto?
2) Can hackers make a better name for themselves by creating more works such as Beberg has done?
3) Do hackers have a place in society, or will they forever be viewed as criminals by those that don't understand them?
Summary
In his article, "The GNU Manifesto", Richard Stallman makes the argument in favor of free software. By free software, he means software that doesn't need to be copyrighted or that people don't need "permission to use" (550). He explains that his intent by saying free software was not to be interpreted as "copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge" (550). Later in the manifesto he explains ways to make a profit by providing the service of distribution, and that the important thing is that everyone who has a copy of the software be free to cooperate with other users of this software (550). Over the course of the article, Stallman intends to reach fellow prgrammers by discounting claims against, or questions discounting, the value of programming software for little monetary reward. By citing that programming of this sort will add to the knowledge base of society, the creativity of society, and will not block progression as a result, Stallman makes the argument for a revolution against copyrights and licensure, and for freedom to do as you wish with software. As the creator of a free software system, GNU, Stallman stakes his claim to be able to have the freedom to improve and share this software with other users. He desires to be able to change the software he's using to better fit his needs, and feels that other users and programmers should also have this freedom.
Inquiry
Stallman's claims are borderline ludicrous. The idea of programmers forgoing profit to better society makes no sense in the world we live in today. For example, in congress today there is the idea of levying energy taxes on large corporations for polluting our environment. While I support this tax, and while this tax would absolutely benefit society by reducing pollution, in no way shape or form are corporations going to agree willingly to pay more money for production than they have to. Stallman discounts the argument of monetary reward saying there can be rewards in other forms, such as creativity and even fame. For this I applaud him, as I quietly laugh at his ludicrous proposition to take money away from people who work for it. I see no value to anyone from taking away their right to have their work become lawfully owned by them through a copyright or licensure agreement. I don't see monopolistic corporations, such as Microsoft, ever be willing to implement "free" software in their realm of work, and finally I don't see how his idea of "free software" is even really free. Levying a tax on the software buyers to compensate for lost profits, charging for services to teach and assist with software, etc. These are all forms of a not very "free" environment. Futhermore, to address the issue of free as the ability to share with users: The best programmers work for the best companies, and DO use feedback to improve their products. Anyone can post comments on the internet on ways to improve the software, albeit in often cases they can run into legal issues. To me, Stallman just wants the ability to legally change things to better suit him, not necessarily to better suit society. The free market works to better society by giving those who create the best product, the best reward, and in today's world that reward is in the form of monetary compensation. I see no reason to change the way this operates, nor do I see this change ever happening. I believe that social gain can come from the system that is currently in use now by way of giving the best people the best reward for creating the best product, and I think it is necessary for them to work very hard to be the best. As our constitution states, the people have the right to property. That property includes that which is in their head, and not just where their residence is built, and to take away the right to this property is to take away a fundamental right and principal that this country was built on.
1) What do you think of Stallman's proposition of "free" software, and what does "free" mean to you?
2) Should copyright and license agreements on software be eliminated?
3) How would society as a whole benefit from the "free" software that Stallman describes?
Welcome to our HNRS200 - "Thinking Critically About New Media," blog where we will analyze, explore, & illustrate how various forms of new media impact our lives and futures.
Summary:
"The Search Party: Google squares off with its Capitol Hill critics" is an article by Ken Auletta, published in early 2008 in The New Yorker. In this article, Auletta discusses Google's new presence in the political arena to an audience curious about Google's growing influence. Although Google was a multi-billion dollar company for several years in the early 21st century, Google was never very politically active. It was not until Google's founders realized the potential harm that could be done to their company by not having political influence that they decided to establish a substantial Washington, D.C. office. Google's stated mission as a company is "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (1). The main problem with making "information" your company's main "product," is that other companies own most, if not all of that information, creating conflict. With Google's extension of their company beyond Search, they have caused alarm within several different industries. Many of these companies have called for an anti-trust case to be brought against Google, but no case has been substantiated thus far.
Closely tied with Google's Search is their advertising: AdWords and AdSense. These extremely successful advertising efforts have allowed Google to nearly surpass the combined advertising revenues of the major television boradcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, & Fox). When Google wanted to acquire DoubleClick, an online advertising giant, anti-trust flags were waved, but eventually put down after Google successfully acquired this company in mid 2008 (a few months after this article was published) [Source]. Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, claims "the more Google knows about a user the better the search results" (4). Critics of Google worry that there is danger in a company that depends on advertising to collect so much data on consumers through their searches. In other words, many people worry about privacy issues with Google, but Google has taken steps to lessen the worry. Searches are stored on Google servers for 18 months (lessened from 24 months previously).
The article claims that Google will need to manage itself as a company, deciding whether it will continue to get "you to what you want as fast as you can and getting out of the way ... or will it become 'a source of content, a platform, a destination?'” (5). Recently, Google has expressed interest in the cell phone market, but has yet to lead in this industry. Schmidt, in response to critics, argues that what "kills a company is not competition but arrogance. We control our fate” (7).
Inquiry:
Google is a company that is trying to take over the world, and they seem to be succeeding. It is hard to name a new media industry or market that Google does not influence. It is interesting comparing Google's image to other companies such as Microsoft. Microsoft, a technology company, states that its mission " is to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential" [Source]. This mission does not sound much different from Google's mission, but yet Google is nearly revered as a company while Microsoft is just trying not to be hated. I would argue that Google is looked at differently by consumers because their products are generally viewed as free. From my personal experience, many people cite the high cost of software as a reason for their dislike of Microsoft. When you have a company like Google that is giving equivalent resources that are perceived as free, "free" will always win (in a popularity contest at least). Consumers would prefer to "pay" for software by the searches they perform and ads they see instead of a direct monetary transaction.
Google's value lies most in what it is able to discern about its users. As the recent Google Super Bowl commercial displayed, our searches tell a story:
Many consumers worry that this knowledge could be used in negative ways, but others point to Google's motto of "Don't be Evil," and trust that Google will not misuse this information. This trust is vital for Google's success as a company. Without consumer trust, Google will have nothing. This information that they gather is very valuable when speaking about advertising. As an example, Facebook has been valued at nearly $11 billion dollars, not because of its great success at turning a profit, but because investors know that information Facebook users put on their profiles is an advertiser's dream come true. Facebook, as well as Google, are able to use information about users to create targeted ads, making them more valuable to potential advertisers.
Questions: