University of California Los Angeles
Comp Lit 19, Fiat Lux Course, Spring 2009
Meetings: Thursdays, 5-5:50 PM in A32 Humanities Bld
The audacious mission of Google is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Fashioning itself as a modern-day library of
Note: The course is inspired by SivaVaidhyanathan's Book/blog, "The Googlization of Everything." Many of the primary materials for the class can be found on his blog.
REQUIREMENTS:
This is a pass/no pass course. Students are required to attend all classes and actively participate in the on-line discussion through the course blog. On average, you should post one blog entry and/or two comments per week as part of the discussion threads. This is the "written work" for the class. All students will also participate in a final class symposium where they present projects on or about Google or using Google tools.
TENTATIVE SYLLABUS:
(note: The syllabus is flexible and will be tailored to reflect the interests of the class. Readings/links will be posted for each week. Students should feel free to post additional links, comments, blog entries for discussion).
April 2: Introduction: What is(n't) Google?
April 9: The Ultimate Search: Ambitions / Ideals / Limitations
April 16: No class (note: Our last day of class will be two hours)
April 23: Google as the Borg/the Matrix/Hal 9000? -- Putting Google on Trial
April 30: Google and the Global Economy: Advertising as the Tie that Binds
May 7: Local Search, Location, and Real-time Awareness: Android for all!
May 14: Google and Web 2.0
May 21: The Geo-spatial Web: Google Maps and Google Earth
May 28: Beyond Driving Directions: Everything is Mappable!
June 4: GOOGLE CLASS SYMPOSIUM (2 hours) -- open to all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 2 and 9th: What is Google? What isn't Google? What can you do with Google? What can't you do with Google?
Assignment #1:
READ ABOUT GOOGLE: www.google.com/corporate
Learn about the history of the company, its philosophy, technologies, principles, etc.
Compare the company self-representation to the representation of Google as "evil" (such as in the following video):
all that is solid melts into google from Peter Woodbridge on Vimeo
* What does the video creator mean that "all that is solid melts into google"?
* Is this a fair representation of Google?
* Is Google's own self-representation fair?
* Should we fear Google or be grateful to Google?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis video really astounded me because it targets Google as the culprit, instead of the master minds behind it. I also find it a bit unfair in the sense that we, the consumer, have a dependency on Google and we are the source of its power. Although I can see the point that the video is making, I'd like to play devil's advocate and point the finger at us. We are the weak beings who rely on this entity to provide us with all that we lack. We are the ones who provide the fire that causes all things solid to melt into Google because without the fire the solid objects would remain solid. If we were active seekers of knowledge and sought to better ourselves beyond the superficial we would not rely on Google to think for us, but we want to move through life expending the least amount of effort as possible. Our own flaws drive us to relinquish our power in the hopes of minimizing the contribution that we must make to society, the world, and ultimately to ourselves. Simplicity and ease mark the route of choice and that is the true problem here.
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing that Google starting without as much advertising as most other dotcom era companies. It relied heavily on word of mouth spread by satisfied users. And with its seemingly endless archive of information and numerous easy-to-use applications, there was no question that users would be satisfied and lured back for more.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Google’s description of the Googleplex as such a homey, friendly, and laid-back environment is a bit unrealistic. I don’t believe that such a huge company can have that extreme a level of familiarity and casualness and still be productive.
By saying “all that is solid melts into google” I believe the video creator means that all information, formerly represented as solid (books, magazines, articles, etc.) is melted into the google search engine. This is probably a very literal interpretation of the statement but one of the reasons why google has grown is the laziness of its users. Why would someone go to the library for research (solid) if they could search Google Scholar and other Google sources for the same information?
Google is seemingly harmless at this point, but I don’t think a single company having a relative monopoly cannot lead to good in the future.
I think I want to take a little different approach with regard to this article and the "About Google" page. The "About Google" section is fine but even beyond that, I found myself exploring deeper parts of Google, looking into employee profiles, job information, location information, and basically all things Google. I thought to myself..."Wow, there really is this cult of personality around Google." And see...when we use the word "cult of personality," there is usually a negative connotation to the word but in Google's case, I find this to be quite the contrary. Who is to say a certain "cult of personality" is a bad thing if that personality is, too put it very simply, "good" in all aspects. I, for example, quite like this cult of personality around Google. They are obviously a proven company with their head in the right place, very web 2.0-esque and seem to change what one may traditionally think of as a "company." It's fun, it's alive, and it seems real. Those are my thoughts on the "about me" section of Google and my interpretation and feelings of that section.
ReplyDeleteNext, as for the video above, my personal initial thought is that "why are these bad?" Now, certainly some are definitely negative but I found myself questioning the video's intended message while I was watching it because I was proud of certain statements in there. Let me provide a few example....
"Free Culture"-Lawrence Lessig Book...Certainly not an anti-google book, or even an anti-technology book.
"I blog therefore I am...."-As if there is no thinking in blogging...I would disagree.
"All that is solid melts into Google."-I am also proud of this statement and fail to see the problem. I also feel that the term "melts" is the wrong term. It does not "melt," it simply replicates onto Google into a different form, the melted form. Therefore it is simply an addition or creation of something new, not the loss of the prior form.
Anyway, my overall impression of this video is that it is laughable. Despite the dramatic music and grotesque, dark images, I find there to be no real meaningful content in this piece other than the issue of privacy on the internet, which is one that I hope we tackle in this class. And...to respond and pose a question to the idea of "Google is a monopoly," "How can we only have one search engine?", or "Google is taking over!" Well, is this really a problem?
First, the type of company, the type of consumption that goes along with the internet is really not one that needs to be concerned about monopolies because of the nature of the internet. In my opinion and I would love to explain this further in class.
Second, in a way, and perhaps I make liberals cringe when I say this, but while I may not believe in the economic free-market, I do believe in the internet-free market. People will use what is best, what is easiest for them, what is most convenient, and what will improve their lives. If that is google, then let it be google. If they begin to falter and someone else rises, they will move to that. And because it is on the internet, a concept, an idea is, in reality, possible to be put into a web site, into a company for little, certainly a lot less money than ever before. Take a look at a Digg.com, or even look at google. They all started with a small investment of time and money, people saw the product, they liked the product, and it grew. They didn't need to invest $10,000,000 right away to get started. The internet provided the same connectivity and network that, in traditional business, money in advertising and marketing would have supplied. In the end, the point is, not only is the internet the ultimate free-market, it is a very fluid and dynamic one.
I think the video is very vague and a bit overdramatic about the threat Google presents. (Also, it seems to criticize a bit more, the attitude towards the internet and Google, not necessarily Google itself.) Not to say that Google could pose a threat to our privacy and free of thought.
ReplyDelete"All that is solid melts into Google" is an allusion to Marx's Communist Manifesto- in particular a section where he is talking about the power and negative impact of the bourgeoisie. Is this claim valid? Does Google own too many "means of production"? Does it mindlessly chase after the last dollar, regardless of morals and values?
I personally would say 'no' to both these questions. For the first question, I think Google needs diversity on the internet to survive. It is, after all, primarily used as a search engine. If Google hypothetically owned all the internet, what use would it be to use the search engine when you could directly go to Youtube and search? (But I don't think this “hypothetically” is even possible logistically or economically; is it possible for the internet to run out of space or be dominated/ have a niche dominated by one company?) For the second question, I don’t think Google actually makes as much money as they could. Its AdWords advertising is aesthetically sparse (text-only), and financial analysts often wonder if Google is overvalued because its advertising doesn’t seem to make significant amount of profit.
However, even if Google isn’t (currently) a threat to our privacy and freedom of speech, to how we “should” use the internet, it can still be part of a threat. In my opinion, Google is too big to be a direct threat- everything is automated with algorithms, computers and servers. Is someone at Google really that interested in tracking down what type of targeted advertising you have? Doubtful; they have better things to do and a nice facility to hang around and geek out at. However, Google can be the tool used to invade privacy. The real source of the threat wouldn’t necessarily come from within Google- it comes from other users on the web. How many times have you Googled someone you just know or just met? I can use Google to find resources on the web find out the home address and relatives of a website’s owner. I can use Google products directly to familiarize myself with their hometown. On a bigger-picture level, there are worries that Google could sell information to third parties. I personally don’t see much of a problem with that because I’m not unnerved by targeted advertising (sometimes I’m amused when it gets off the mark too) and I feel it’s a fair payment to keep the service I want.
As for Google’s informational pages (especially those on their culture and philosophy), I do agree that it seems a little “too good to be true”, but I do actually believe it. Google has the fortune of being a major company that came out of the Silicon Valley, and I’ve always felt west coast/California business and more specifically Silicon Valley type businesses (i.e. internet companies) are a little different from the way businesses are often run in the rest of the world. It’s my impression that internet start ups often are more down to earth, laid back, and focused on their users (check out officesnapshots.com and you’ll see their most popular list has mostly web-companies). I think Google is just sticking to this philosophy that helped differentiate and popularize it. If they can stick to their “Ten Things” philosophy, then I don’t think any of the worries about Google will come true.
Nice job identifying the source of the quote... "All that's solid melts into air" is from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Courtesy of Wikipedia, here's part of the fuller quote:
ReplyDelete"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."
I would just like to say that I find it ironic how we are posting all our thoughts about google (whether it is an invasion of privacy, etc) publicly in the google medium.
ReplyDelete