By now you’ve most likely seen several articles like this one where the CEO of Google infers that anonymity on the web isn’t necessary and that the Internet’s future will contain none of it whatsoever.
People freak out when they read stuff like that.
Every time I read an article of that ilk I get a chuckle because the bitter truth is that the Internet will never be 100% anonymity-free. As big as Google is, it is not bigger than the Internet itself, nor will it ever be.
It’s very easy to read those type of articles and think that, in the future, none of us will be able to surf anywhere or do anything without our real name being attached to it. To be blunt, getting that to work in practical application would be next to impossible.
Two Big Things About Google
There’s two things you have to remember about Google.
First, their primary means of revenue is advertising, and if they tick off the public who uses their system too much by asking too much of them, the public will simply stop using said system. When that happens, money is lost by the truckload, the customer’s trust is unlikely to be regained and the company will ultimately fold.
“Google? Fold? OH, COME ON.. that will never happen… right?”
It could. No business has a magic cloak that shields them forever.
Second, all the information you give them is voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to give them anything. You don’t have to use Google search (Scroogle, anyone?) You don’t have to use Gmail, Google Maps or any of their products. It is not required.
Aside from those two things to remember about Google, absolutely none of the articles like the one above touch upon the fact that things like other web sites (like this one), IRC and forums will still be around and most likely always will be as long as the Internet exists. It’s not like they’re going to vanish into thin air.
Google Isn’t The Internet
The great thing about the Internet is that there is no one entity that owns it. Some people are under the foolish belief that Internet = Google. Um.. no. I can get my way around the Internet quite easily without any Goog involvement whatsoever, search and all.
Let’s say for the moment Goog does institute a no-anonymity policy for use of their services. So what? Does that stop you from being anonymous elsewhere? No. Does that stop you from concealing your identity when you want to broadcast sensitive whistleblower-style material? Maybe before social media it would stop you – but not anymore.
And who’s to say that if Goog did decide to go anon-free that it wouldn’t backfire on them in such a huge way that it would tear the company to shreds?
The future is not as bleak concerning anonymity as some would think. Have faith in your Internet and anonymous folk. Both are people-powered and not business-powered; it’s the people who ultimately decide what’s acceptable on the Internet and what isn’t – not Google. Don’t believe otherwise.
Like what you read?
If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:
Yeah, I've seen comments like that from Zuckerburg over at Facebook as well.
I think there is merit to it from a broad consumer perspective. It has been argued, for instance, that the problem with email is that there is no workable “Caller ID”, so it is all too easy to spoof an email and make it look like it came from somebody else.
Either way, though, you're right – people will always have options and nothing any company can do can take away the ability to be anonymous online.
People really thing that google is the internet?!? Weird… makes me think back to America Online.
Remember when plenty of people thought that AOL was the internet? Heck, some people we get coming in here at the library still think that way, and are baffled when they learn that there's more to the online world than AOL.
A lot of people actually prefer yahoo over google, just different demographics. Good read, dont worry everyone well come unplug you from the googtrix soon!
That is funny, I had forgotten all about Scroogle and I used to use that years ago! Thanks for the reminder!
>> No business has a magic cloak that shields them forever.
Actually they do… once they are deemed “to big to fail”. It happened to the banks and now look a BP (destroying an entire ecosystem and people still line up at their pumps).
Politics aside, Facebook has proven people don't care about their privacy as people continue to use that system despite public knowledge they don't respect your information.
While I agree with you that I don't totally trust Google, I don't believe they are stupid enough to just blatantly disrespect people's information. They are much more long term thinkers than that…
An example of a company many said was too big to fail was Pam Am World Airways. That airline was the biggest and the flag carrier for the USA at one point. Folded completely, and happened so fast you didn't know which end was up.
When it comes to banks, the big ones fail all the time, with the biggest in recent history being Washington Mutual, a.k.a. “WaMu” in 2008, the former largest S&L association. But as is the way of things in banking when one fails, the assets were acquired quickly by JPMorgan Chase, life went on, then WaMu filed Chapter 11.
Bigness cannot save a company from going under, nor can it shield them forever. It may provide adequate protection for a while, but eventually they become too big for their own good, they're either forced to diversify (as is what happened to Bell Telephone in 1974) or they just implode. It's always one or the other.
As for Google, yes they are very aware of their userbase. Where their stupidity comes in is that they (or at least their CEO does) believe they are the Grand Poobahs of what's “right” for the Internet public as a whole. It's as if they're saying, “Since we're the most-used search, we know what's best.” Um.. no, Google, you don't. You're a business, and while business does play a large part of the Internet, the Internet is people-powered first and always. If the people decide you suck, you will get stomped.
I understand where you are coming from, but Pan Am is a bad example as this is a totally different world as opposed to the one Pan Am existed in. For example, Walmart has basically destroyed small businesses which thrived in Pan Am's world. In the same sense, communications and the Internet has made the world smaller which makes it easy for the big companies to get bigger.
I'm not saying Google is invincible (after all look at WaMu like you pointed out), but 2010 is a drastically different world from the 70's and popular belief is many businesses are too large to fail. I think Google may be to the point where the are perceived that way: “Some people are under the foolish belief that Internet = Google.”
Your points are valid regarding “bigness” so time will tell how Google chooses to throw their proverbial weight around.
Wal-Mart is a good example as they did post a loss in 2010 (profit up but US sales down) – and that's in today's world. They're not immune to losing and are well on their way to implosion. It will occur, and of that I have no doubt.
I have seen the movie explaining what Wal-Mart does to small biz, but that was 2005. In 2010 they're getting squeezed, feeling the pressure and losing in the US market.
No business is too big to fail. Whether it's what happened to Howard Johnson's in the 70s, Pan Am in the 80s (early 90s actually), Pets.com in the late 90s, or now with WaMu, Circuit City folding and so on, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Google isn't immune to folding.
But GM is for some reason.