"Mommy, there's something artificial in my mouth." Hey, those were my first words too.

Remember, I grew up in a time when if you wanted a mobile phone you had to take the house along with you. I have Facebook and Myspace accounts, but for me, the computer is still very utilitarian, Word documents, e-mails, research for school papers. I have an AIM account, log onto a chat room every now and then and have one friend that I text with. So imagine my curiosity when I found the pages in the Web Theory text with all the emoticons and acronyms. As god as my witness I tried to do my entire blog with them, AAMOF and CMIIW, it was hard IMHO and needless to say I’m SITD about the whole thing TYVM. Oh, BTW +0:-).

 

One of the social implications of Web searching is the ability for those with the information, controlling the information. The Google censors itself for China was a good example of that. If Google wants to assemble all the public information and make it available to searchers how can they possibly not allow certain searchers to work? Googles argument of being more useful by participating than boycotting is admirable, but my cynic meter is telling me they are participating for the revenue not to ultimately change Chinese policy. Google has become the corporate conglomerates that run TV and radio, too much control of information and not nearly enough voices delivering the message.

 The ‘don’t be evil’ moniker is mentioned in the Inside The Wide World of Google article. As a company that moves public information in a country that rants freedom of speech in the First Amendment, I would think censorship would be high on the list of evil. I am just not a proponent of too much information in the hands of so few people.

 

I have to admit I don’t know much or participate in the social networking aspect of the Web. This blogging issue is like a new girlfriend to me, very exciting but scary all at the same time. The fact that I took away from the Google Aims to Break Open the Closed World of Social Networking was on page two paragraph two and it stood out like a redheaded girlfriend. And that was, “Google…with tools that will allow developers access to the social graph and other personal data on participating networks.” Personal data, personal data! Again, I’ll admit I don’t know much about how these networks work or how personal data is, but I’m concerned with any company the size of Google allowing others access to personal data of any kind. I mean SMIIW. I have read articles about how Google deals with search information in the past. And the video we watched did nothing to dispel these feelings. When asked why Google kept search queries for more than 30 days, the answer was based on the fact they had to keep this information for Spell Check. WTF is that all about. Now on the other hand the Google defies US over search data from the BBC, on its face seemed to be a commendable move for Google.

 

The Google in China article was interesting. I’m all about Google NOT censoring the information they compile to the Chinese people. I also understand the double-edged sword Google is up against on this one. They are a corporation; they do want to make money so in order to one day possibly serve China uncensored they must restrict the flow of information now. It is not unconceivable that opening up to the Chinese government could also bolster the amounts of content for Google.

 

Both the There at the Start, and Divining the Web’s Future and Google and the wisdom of Clouds articles were fascinating reads. The clouds article reminded me of the excerpts from Tim Berners-Lee book. It was a small idea at first that just kept growing and developing into something unexpected. It was kind of Orwellian perhaps to think about Google becoming the world’s primary computer. Once again, that is just too much information and control of information in the hands of too few people.

 

Almost done. The documentary about Google I found to be absolutely, disturbing. It starting out with me making notes about who made this, what was the angle going to be, was it a documentary or infomercial. For the first ten minutes I was sold on the concept of Google, I was in fact, for a brief moment, in Jonestown drinking the Kool-aid with the rest of the folks. Vint Cerf explained the page rank system, the relevance and the fact Google does not apply opinion to the search. Then the documentarians began to talk to other Googleans. The spell check response on retaining information for more than 30 days was poor, at best. And when the young lady was asked about the perception people have of Google becoming Big Brother her response was “I don’t see it that way.” On another question regarding retaining information her response was “That’s not my perception.” Neither question dealt with her perception but the public’s opinion and perception. IMHO she did Google a disservice in representing sensitive issues, for me personally, about policies on how Google deals with and handles the information regarding its users.

 

In the end, Vint Cerf, put it all back into perspective. He reminded the interviewer that ultimately the searcher must decide and weed threw the search results to find what the truth is, we all have different and sometimes opposing views on what the truth is. He also reminded the interviewing that he as a communicator could also take the information he/she was collecting Google and represent it with regards to the truth, as seen by the producers of the documentary. That’s what makes it so important to have as many voices out there to tell stories, provide information and deliver messages to the public. Even if it is bad information, with as many voices as possible delivering the messages, ultimately the truth will rise to the top.

 

The sad news for Yahoo not accepting Microsoft’s offer is that the possibility exists for a voice in the industry of Web searching could be silenced. Although I’m not a fan of Microsoft growing larger, but perhaps the competition with Google could keep their plan of information domination in perspective.