Credit: misshaOkay, not a conspiracy. But still reason enough to force ourselves aware of just how omnipresent Google is becoming. From a little op-ed I wrote for the American Prospect this week:
When I heard that Google was rolling out yet one more application, in the form of Google Buzz, the first thought that came to mind was that the Internet is starting to feel like a one-company town. I was soon online, catching up on the fascinating story of Pullman, Illinois. Built on the edge of Chicago by the Pullman Palace Car Company in the 1880s, the 300-acre town was the company's answer to the industrial-age conundrum. How do you reap the efficiencies of gathering workers in one place without descending into urban chaos? Pullman did it by controlling everything. Workers and their families attended Pullman schools, shopped in Pullman groceries, and worshiped in Pullman churches.
All went along well enough in Pullman, it seems, until the summer of 1894. That's when a wage riot was put down by U.S. marshals and army troops, according to a contemporaneous report by federal investigators I stumbled across. The Pullman Company's paternalism was blamed for creating a repressive and unstable environment for workers.
The tools joyously employed by me as I indulged these dark musings about how Google is turning the Internet into a company town? Google Search, naturally. Google Books. Google Scholar.
The comparison between Pullman the company's relationship to Pullman the town and Google's relationship to the Internet breaks down upon close examination, of course. The Internet offers choice, not limitation. (As Google may well find out as Buzz attempts to compete with Twitter and Facebook.) Perhaps more important is that unlike for the workers of Pullman, Google's omnipresence is beneficial for both the company and its clients. Still, those distinctions don't completely negate the fact that Google is becoming an ever larger part of how many of us experience the cyber environment. As dependent as many of us — governments included — are becoming on one company, it's only sensible to bring to the forefront the trade-offs we make in that relationship.
Jane told me she liked the last paragraph, so for her, I'll re-post it. If you don't want to spoil the ending, run away now! If not, read on:
One reaction is to diversify: Hotmail instead of Gmail, MapQuest instead of Google Maps, AOL Instant Messenger instead of Google Chat — though that would mean losing the accumulated benefits of linked services. Another reasonable response is to focus efforts on improving our (new) media literacy so that we're more mindful of how much even free stuff can still cost. If we don't force ourselves to be aware of those trade-offs, we risk stumbling into an increasing dependence on yet one more company that's too big to fail.
