Googled | Was Google good? After that?

Googled | Ken Auletta | Was Google good? After that?

'Google' which achieved democratization of information and knowledge

If you are an Internet user, you do not dare 'Googling', I guess Google is the self-evident fact of the world's search engine share. Thanks to Google's innovative search engine, users can sail victims of the Internet to find information at high speed without wasting time. Unlike a portal site where advertisements sticky hangs, miscellaneous links and somehow suffer, it seems strongly to feel that users are trying to confine users to the framework they set, Google's homepage has no small image. There is really no waste and it is beautiful. Here, the will of the Google founder (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) who thinks that banner advertisement does not offer the best experience to the user is reflected, but on the one hand, the user needs as soon as possible It includes user-centered Google philosophy that searches for information and destinations (as opposed to portal sites where users want to capture forever), and who wants to get out of Google. Thanks to this, the user can freely navigate the sea Internet of information comfortably and promptly regardless of what the user is.

It is no exaggeration to say that Google's excellent search engine has removed the walls that conflict when we find information and knowledge, thereby democratizing information and knowledge. Google's search results are self-portraits of information and knowledge that is a cultural heritage of mankind, reflecting our society, and showing what kind of topics the generation is caught. To companies competing with Google, inconvenient truth, Google, which we got on the Internet democratization icon, gained confidence in the users. But do not overlook the fact that 'crowds' wisdom' that Google follows is not an absolute rule to quickly screen good quality information. In other words, it can be queried and it is not a useful and useful information. If 'crowds' wisdom' and algorithmic news gathering of machines can replace existing journalism, if Google is the only user, it will be a cause of distress necessary for progress of civilization and the development of democracy It is a dangerous idea that may lead to the degeneration of Homo sapiens, if it decreases the existence value of intellectuals to do.

Concerns about Google relying on advertising revenue

After all, the Internet is Google and Google is firmly established on the Internet, but now it is impossible to do anything on the Internet without going through Google. Although Google has eliminated the barriers to finding information and knowledge, Google's monopoly has left users locked in an opaque tunnel called Google, where light and darkness coexist. If Google monopolizes the access path to information and knowledge, it can determine what information Google will see for its users. This is a problem that can not be overlooked as the trajectory of life changes and life may change as people acquire some information as they live. In fact, Google blocked certain sites at the request of the Chinese government and the German government. Google's enthusiasm, who tried to run only towards the future that we wanted to accomplish, and Google's far-reaching ambitions that were afraid of other companies. These things were a moment of compromise with the huge wall of reality.

This is not the only moment when you abandon your pride and compromise with reality. Page and Brin did not enjoy reading novels, watching movies and concerts, and despising games like golf which takes a long time. They regarded the most efficient use of time than anything more than anything else and could not stand the waste of time badly. So Google's main sources of income, AdWords and AdSense, also placed users in a way that users do not use the Internet, and blocked pop-ups that hinder the Internet voyage on Google Toolbar. However, Google's acquisition, advertising on YouTube who has been unable to keep the deficit for a long time is forced and consumes the user's time. Users have to watch advertisements for the first few seconds at the beginning of the video, sometimes it is necessary to watch intermediate advertisements around 1 minute depending on the time. The user must settle the "YouTube Red" which is a paid service for viewing advertisements or no advertisements.

As advertising is the main source of income, this degree of change as Google is probably natural. Here, changes in Google's perception that advertisements are not obstacles to irritate unconditional users and may be useful information if there is "relevance" with the information and knowledge the user is looking for I am playing a part. The important thing is that Google must make use of the ever-increasing size of dinosaurs, and also have to win over the growth pressures. For that, creative innovation needs to be continually backed up as we have done so far. Internet information is a belief in the Internet revolution that everyone is free to use it for free, and no one can deny that Google's beliefs gradually tighten Google from the pressure of growth and revenue . If Google is relying solely on advertising as it is now, without changing the attitude that "we will need to pay for our services to use our services," strong advertisers Blocking a specific site or there is a material that the advertiser's breath severely acts on the search result like Korean portal site neighbor (Currently, in Google search results, advertisements related to keywords occasionally It is exposed at the top and bottom of the page). In this way, the trust that users have received so far beyond the line that should not be exceeded will be lost in the morning, or gradually lost.

However, nobody knows where the tipping point is to trigger such a thing. In light of Google's ambition to overthrow the world, it may be inevitable for Google's beginnings to change with the changes in the world or with the winds they have created. But the world can not accept all the changes, and so do the users. Every change contains positive and negative. I do not know whether a certain degree of change will be the last marginal route that does not lose user's trust while maintaining the current innovation, and at which point the change will serve as a tipping point to break the trust that has accumulated over the years.

'Big Data' Google, privacy invasion?

Let's talk about 'big data' now. In the future, if 'Big Brother' is born, the possibility is the best subject and the current Google. The amount of data that Google collected for about 20 years since its founding is very large. When it comes to the fact 'Internet = google', we give Google value every time we do a search. Here, a huge advertiser's data is merged. Advertisers range from small businesses to large companies. They are more likely to have data that Google does not have, such as credit card usage statements, call logs, names and addresses, education and experience. As mentioned earlier, if Google has 'relevance' like keyword advertisement, advertisement is regarded as one useful information. This will naturally lead to the logic that exposes the data to another location, enhances relevance, and benefits the user. Being a user's benefit will increase the probability that users will click on ads or purchase items, which will soon lead to an increase in Google's advertising revenue. Also, the increase in Google's advertising revenue means immediate increases in advertiser revenue. Is not something creepy?

Besides that, the data collected by Google can also be used for data mining technology, which advertisers combine with their ownership data to infer user's needs and behavior patterns. This brings enormous benefits to advertisers. In the era of full-scale data mining, the data that Google has is the future of all advertisers, it will be hopeful. It is clear even if you do not see that the needs of advertisers who want to press Google in various ways and want more data are amplified.

Google's data is sensitive enough to sensitive users to privacy and privacy concerns, but worse is Blein, one of Google's founders. "Do users trust what we do? That 's more important than privacy. ". As Ken Auletta, the author of 『Googled: The End of the World As We Know It』 says Bryn's idea is that if we believe in Google, there is no reason to fear they might abuse our data. But we know what kind of destructive ending Hitler brought to the German people who believed in him. We also know how many politicians, elected through elections, have gained public support and trust, and how they have put cold water on the people 's expectations. The pages of the innocent enthusiasm of engineer and Blein's perversion are indifferent to how easily someone does not understand their intentions, like Oleta's assessment, and are not easily measured. Here we can not help but mention the sharp question of Marc Rotenberg, president of The Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Why should Google collect that information?"

So far, Google was good?

Until now, Google's slogan, "Do not be evil," has been generally accepted as positive for users, although Google's competing companies may look like demons. The trust that users send to Google reflects the fact that Google still dominates the impression that it is good. Even so, the fact that Google is good now does not guarantee that Google will forever be good. Nevertheless, it is clear that Google is technologically and morally innovative as compared to other large corporations. However, successful companies have often shown that Google's idealism, which believes it has a duty to try to make the world a better place, is getting weaker in the face of reality. It's still likely that Google will be good for the time being because the founder Page and Bryn are still young and alive and show their passion. However, when two people leave the world and two senior staff members who have led Google since the beginning have left the world one by one, how will Google change? Do users still trust the phrase then? Is the colossal data they collect and own are still safe? At that time, I am already dead and I do not have to worry too much.

It seems that you have to trust Google in a position to depend entirely on Google. It is like a resident who has to live next to a poor nuclear power plant. Fearing that something might explode on a daily basis, you can just forget the existence of a nuclear power plant, or you can trust yourself completely in the power plant and deviate yourself from the nightmare of daily heartbreak. Currently, there is no alternative to Google, and there is no way to escape Google. On the other hand, Google's monopoly seems to be safe. If the second Google appears and competes with Google to erode Google's advertising revenue, so if Google is in the biggest crisis since its inception, Google should use the data it has collected so far to increase ad revenue and appease advertisers. It will be difficult to withstand pressure.

Wrap-up

As you can see from the fact that you left a huge review statement earlier, 『Googled』 is a book that makes Google think a lot about the future of the Internet and makes many questions a question . This book explains how the Google founder's page and the beliefs of Brin have settled as a culture of Google and how such culture provided innovation, the passion and creativity of the Google empire, so Describing such things that, despite many projects failing, you conquered the world with only search engines, and gained full support and trust of users despite failed projects. Also, the author has not lost critical view. After the founding of Google, it was a time when the Internet revolution had just begun. The history of Google is a big part of the history of the Internet, as it is Google that adds the explosive power of a nuclear warhead to its power. On the other hand, Google's growing process of innovating and embracing the digital media world was an inevitable battle with existing media forces. In that sense, this book deals with the upheaval of the digital media world.

As a Google user, once you've read this book, you may find that some people have a stronger sense of trust in Google, or some doubtful. Unless we are in anyway in a position that we can not leave Google, and if we do not have the talent to explode innovation that goes beyond Google, we should not be falling into the bane of change (If there is no person who enjoys retirement, however, recently the faisens do not do about the Internet?) It would be wise to remain a man. It is the way we communicate with the world, living in a time of digital revolution that can measure its power in the distant future. The world is changing and it is also a process of searching for your seat as an individual in the harsh Internet world where you can survive if it does not change.

View original