The Church of Google

While I agree that Google has had a large impact the internet as we know it today, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical. This skepticism mostly stems from questioning the power of a company that has a potential monopoly.  Google has become such a stronghold on the internet.  It is virtually impossible to go on a website and not see a Google logo.  The word “Google” has even become a synonym of searching for something.  When someone doesn’t know certain information, they are often told to “Google” their question.  Now not only is Google a method of searching, but it means searching.  This brings me back to my original skepticism: what does this say about the power of Google?

            To answer Geoff’s second question, I’m not sure how to feel about Google’s goal to “synthesize everything”.  In many ways this makes me think that synthesis takes away the greatest aspect of the internet: different information.  Having the ability to search across different mediums throughout the world in one place is what makes the internet special.  Furthermore, what gives Google the credibility to make such decisions necessary to synthesize data?  Wouldn’t that just make every source the same source?  This allows Google to input their own agenda in the information that they change and/or leave the same.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with the values of this company, I’m relatively sure that I disagree with their control over internet information.  Wasn't the original purpose of Google to be a search engine?  I don’t think information synthesizer is part of that. 

Reaction to The Church of Google

In my opinion, Google is one of the most important features of the internet. With the power to "Google" something, one can search through millions of sites and archives to find exactly what information they need in a matter of a little more than a second. This is absolutely extraordinary to think about that we can have any information we need about anything in a matter of minutes, or even less. Google is now even more important than it was years ago because the power of the search engine has systematically increased and the base has broadened, giving it an advantage over the less powerful search engines.
Giving Google such power over what people can find though, gives it a lot of power. Let's say that Google does not find a certain piece of information to be worthy of including it in a search result, it can omit that information. If Google should ever decide to do something like that, the public will most likely never know because they will have a difficult time trying to find it on the internet without Google.
In order to keep the competitive edge over other search engines such as Yahoo!, Ask Jeeves, Bing, and Dogpile, Google offers complimentary services, such as giving users related searches, using their website to play games (such as Pac-Man), compiling user's preferences into home pages, and adding links to other organizations, such as the news. Google will not stop doing this, even if it depletes some money from profits, because Google's features is what separates it from other search engines. As long as Google can keep users interested, it will be guaranteed success.
Artificial Intelligence is related to Google because it relies on human programming to have computers do the work. Google would be interested in AI because it shows an opportunity to increase both the quality of its service and profits. When a user types a search into Google, a human does not compile the results for the user, a computer finds results that pertain to the keywords all over the internet. If Google can master AI and somehow link it to their services, Google's already success can reach even higher.

The Church of Google

In Carr's somewhat alarmingly named chapter "The Church of Google" he characterizes the internet behemoth both positively and negatively. First he praises its importance to the internet as our primary means of navigating the billions of webpages. However, he also blames Google as purveyors of distraction, who profit off of your every click away from a concentration.

1)Do you agree with Carr about Google's importance to the internet? There were other search engines before it, and others since (like Bing). Is Google as important now as it was in the early 00s before the internet truly became a mass media?
2)What do you think of Google's goal to "systematize everything" and synthesize as much data as possible and make it widely available? Can we trust Google? Do you think it's safe for one company to control so much data (books, internet searches, video), especially if it calls itself a "moral force"?
3)Carr describes how Google operates some of its "complements" at a loss, like Youtube which lost between $200 and $500 million dollars last year, in order to collect data from its users. Despite these losses, Google is still an extremely profitable company. What do you think could cause it to stop expanding or to stop offering complementary services? What could stop Google at this point?
4)How does Carr's description of Artificial Intelligence fit into his book? We can see how it links to Google, which is interested in AI, but what point does Carr want to make by describing the power of AI and its differences from actual human thought?

Questions for The Church of Google

Some questions for thought:

Carr mentions that Taylorism is based on six assumptions:

1)      That the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency.

2)      That technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment.

3)      That human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity.

4)      That subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking.

5)      That what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value.

6)      That the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.

Do you feel that these six aspects of Taylorism are correct, or are they missing/overlooking something?  Also, do you believe that these aspects of Taylorism can be found in internet companies like Google, as Carr does?  Lastly, Carr says that Google is doing for the mind what Taylor did for the hand.  Do you feel that this is true?  Have we, through using Google, become “automatons” following identical online procedures and habits?  If we have, is this a good change or a bad change (or maybe even a little of each)?

Carr also discusses the issues surrounding Google Book Search, namely that he feels the search “dismembers” books, ruining the cohesion and linearity of the text, all while placing other links, tabs, and ads nearby to distract “the reader’s fragmented attention.”  Does Carr have a point, or is he overly concerned without a need to be?

E-Books and the kindle

The kindle is a new fascination among readers because it is one compact device that holds many books. Also, it has the power to enable the user to click on and follow hyperlinks. These hyperlinks lead to definitions for words or other articles. I feel that these hyperlinks are nothing but helpful to the reader. If the reader does not understand something, they can simply click on the hyperlink and be led to a place where they could find out what they need. If they do not need to understand anything, and is compelled by what they are reading, I see no reason that the reader would want to interrupt their activity to click on a hyperlink. It is true that this medium allows the user to distract themselves if necessary, but the choice is a huge part of the reason it is a concern. The reader must choose to stop what they are doing to click a hyperlink, but what would interest the reader in doing so if they are enjoying themselves reading their book.
The paper community is worried its era of dominance has come to an end. Very soon it will. Because most media are rushing to an electronic format rather than physical, all paper materials will cease to exist due to the convenience of electronic media. Why should a user buy 10 physical books from a store, while they can go online and download it to their kindle for a cheaper price? Physical books still have some years left in their time of rule, but their sales will decrease as the number of downloads increase. They will indeed be missed, but only to be replaced by something more convenient and cost effective.

What's to become of the book?

I personally found the ending paragraphs of Chapter 6 of The Shallows to be very profound and thought provoking. The entire chapter addresses the issue about what is to become of the book in our now Internet and multi-tasking obsessed society. I really find this topic interesting because I myself love to read books; there is something really special to me about being able to curl up on a couch with a blanket and read a novel. I often find that I am completely absorbed and I lose track of time while getting to know the characters and the plot of the story. It also seemed really intriguing to me when Carr discusses the introduction of the e-book. This aspect was especially interesting to me because I am currently reading the e-book version of The Shallows on the Kindle. Carr talks about how the Kindle allows for a more distracted read because of the hyperlinks and wireless internet availability-- I however find that if I am truly interested in what I am reading I won't even notice the hyperlinks, and if I do I won't have the desire to click on them and navigate away from the text. I have read quite a few books on the Kindle, and if I am interested in what I am reading I have to problem staying focused and in retrospect if I am reading an actual book that I find especially boring I will have a hard time focusing and staying connected with that version of the text.
My questions for you are:
Do you believe that it is the medium of a text that influences how you are reading or the actual content of the text itself?
Do you think that the hyperlinks are distracting in a negative way or could they also be seen as positive in the way that they allow for a larger field of knowledge and opinions and real life connections to the text?
Do you believe that books will become "momentos of how reading used to be" or do you think they will continue in popularity as this same negative forecast has been predicted for them in the past?

First, I think our education system has yet to fully adapt to the so-called distracted state that technology media has brought about. My little sister is in third grade and she still brings home books for reading and they still have Sustained Silent Reading for half an hour in her class. Moving up to high school, I feel as though there has been an increase in the need for silent reading for intellectual growth because Advanced Placement courses are becoming more popular. In those courses, high school students take on the work load of a college student, with sustained reading in textbooks being a primary way in which the students learn in the class. And we all know how much reading we do (or are supposed to do) for our classes as college students. Essentially, reading for an extended period of time in order to gathering information and insight is still a central practice in our education system, which, mostly likely, will be here to stay for a while. We have yet to have shorter class periods or readings in shallow, bullet-pointed form; however, I do feel that the emphasis on more interactivity in classrooms and less lecture is the educational system’s way of slowly and begrudgingly giving in a little to our distracted minds. Yet, other than that, I don’t see how the educational system is working with our shortened attention spans, if anything, it’s the only think keeping sustained reading and thought alive.

            Furthermore, I’m not sure what I think about the educational system becoming as disjoined as our search for knowledge on the internet. Like I said before, I feel like the educational system is the one of the only institutions keeping extended reading and thought alive. Cornerstones of education and scholarship, such as the essay and personal research will still need to be written in order to people to fully understand complex topics and issues. Therefore, I don’t think this linear form of thinking will ever go away. Yet, if the educational system is one of the basic institutions were we learn about and understand the world, will all sustained thought be lost if the educational system does not teach it? And does that even matter? I know Carr is arguing that yes, it does matter and I do find that I agree with him on several points; however, as we’ve talked about in class, I am hesitant to say this is a bad thing. I think distracted ways of thinking are just too new for us to know how to deal with them.