At a briefing I attended last week, a Congressional staffer
from the Department of Defense said that their biggest perceived threat is
non-state actors. His statement coincides nicely with our class discussion and
readings pertaining to the growing influence of non-state actors, specifically
Google. Google is now considered as an influential international actor. There
is a timely article in the NYTimes published on November 3, 2012, entitled,
“Google Casts a Big Shadow on Smaller Websites”, that speaks to Google’s
growing power. The article concerns a
government investigation on Google violating antitrust laws by stifling
competition. It opens with a narrative on the decline of Nextag’s online traffic
from Google’s search engine in which the CEO of Nextag acknowledges, ““We’re living in Google’s world.” The article
considers the manner in which other websites are reliant on Google and their
ranking in search results.
In the article “Google Earth and the nation state:
Sovereignty in the age of new media” by Sangeet Kumar, he states that scholars,
uncertain of how to approach Google as a powerful non-state actor, have elevated
its status, “calling it ‘a sovereign entity equivalent to a nation’.” (p.159)
Google is equated to a nation-state because of ‘its tip tier intellectual
talent, financial resources in the billions of dollars, and world-class
information-processing resources combined with ten years of interaction data’
(p.159). Due to its intellectual power, it has been able to challenge
nation-states. The NYTimes article addresses how other websites live in Google’s
shadow, proving that, as non-state actors continue to grow, they simultaneously
shift the global power.
NYTimes Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/technology/google-casts-a-big-shadow-on-smaller-web-sites.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Kristie,
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up an excellent point about Google and the growth of non-state actors. Dealings between Google and governments of certain countries, like China, have highlighted the importance of Google and similar non-state actors. In terms of international relations, Google-China relations demonstrated that state-to-state relations are no longer the only state relations that matter.
As Google's interactions with countires become more noticeable, we often forget about Google's interactions with other comapnies. The NY article is important in that it both reminds everyone that Google is still a company and discusses some of the implications of those relationships as Google's power and influence continues to grow. This made me wonder about Google's image? Should we continue to view it strictly as a company, as an influential non-state actor, or as Kumar put it, essentially a state? As Google's influence continues to grow, will it start to behave more like a state than a company?
Olga,
DeleteI am also curious about Google's image, not just on state and non-state actors, but on the individual. I do believe that Google is both a company and an influential non-state actor. Like the guest speaker in class, many people oftentimes tailor publications, resumes or blog sites in a way that will make it more Google friendly and accessible. Many websites, including this one, have synched with Google. Nowadays, it is not necessary to sign up for or create a username and password for a site if you already have a Google ID. Google has even made waves in the cellphone industry creating a popular Google phone. There is no doubt that Google is a monopoly, I have to admit that I always turn to Google as the most credible search engine. As I am writing about and thinking of all the influences, synching compatibility and power that Google has on both the individual and national level, it is possible that Google could start to behave more like a state than a company.
You bring up some great questions concerning Google’s role in a larger context, both within the national and global arena. The NYTimes article highlights Google’s interactions within a nation, focusing on smaller companies and their perception of the rising non-state actor. But what about our individual engagement with Google? Once again, I can’t help but admit that we truly are living in Google’s world. The guest speaker in last week’s class spoke about having to change the title of her book
ReplyDeleteso that it would easily show up in a Google search. Google’s algorithms overshadowed the author’s creative liberty. In order to maximize the reach and marketability of her book, the guest speaker had no choice but to concede and play on Google’s terms.
Thank you for sharing insights from the briefing you attended, Kristie. Both your comments shed light on Google's growing role as a non-state actor with formidable power in nation-state politics (Olga rightly highlighted Google's complicated relationship with China. Evan Osnos of the New Yorker has chronicled this saga on his blog for the magazine, "Letter from China").
ReplyDeleteProfessor Giovanna Dell'Orto's experience with generating a book title that would "float" to the top of any Google inquiry and fit search engine optimization (SEO) criteria is indicative of Google's success in convincing every day internet users--first in the United States, then in other countries around the world--to adopt it as the world's most popular search engine.
Some experts might argue that while Google's algorithms may have overshadowed Professor Dell'Orto's creative freedom, our mainstream acceptance of Google as the world's leading and dominant search engine may darken more than just written creativity in the future, if unchecked. One particular expert, Siva Vaidhyanathan, professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia, cautions us to think critically about the global embrace of Google. Prof. Vaidhvanathan is the author of the book "The Googlization of Everything — and Why We Should Worry," which was published last year.
In his review of Prof. Vaidhvanathan's book, Times Higher Education critic Harold Thimbleby highlights the points made in "The Googlization of Everything," writing:
"Google's motto is "don't be evil", which implies that its work could be evil. (My employer doesn't need to remind itself all the time not to be evil.) The problem is that we may like Google today, but it could go bad. Google knows too much about everyone for us to risk that.
Lots of information locked up inside Google could be used against you. Google's cameras have travelled the world collecting photographs and making the images available on Street View. Thieves can look at your house and see your car; now they know where to come if they want to steal to order. If you have privacy concerns this is not ideal, and it may get worse.
But if you are the voyeur, then you are on Google's side: for each person who worries and complains, there are millions more who like it. The marketplace says popular is good - for business, that is. By making information popular in order to run a business, Google is in danger of becoming the new opium of the people.
This gives it political leverage that is the envy of many regimes. How will people vote when a for-profit company gratuitously shifts national boundaries? Where is its mandate?"
These are interesting points to consider when problematizing the roles of individuals, nation-states, and their relationship with Google. To read more of Thimbleby's review, see here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417065.
Prof. Vaidhvanathan's blog is available here: http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/.
What do you think of the Googlization of everything? Is it dangerous? Is the convenience worth the risks that may be associated with it? Given that information is a commodity in the world marketplace, when does privacy end and where does the sale of information begin?