Debating The Future of Google at the New York Times
Yesterday, on its “Room for Debate Blog,” the New York Times had a very interesting two-part discussion on the future of Google. The debate featured insights from author and communications expert Ken Auletta and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, and was moderated by veteran Times reporter John Markoff. I highly recommend reading both Part One and Part Two all the way through, but I wanted to share some of their comments on Google and privacy.
Google vs. Government
Markoff: During the past four decades first I.B.M. and then Microsoft dominated the computing industry. Both faced extended antitrust battles with the government. Now, despite its “do no evil,” motto, Google is increasingly seen as the dominant force in computing. Is it heading for an antitrust collision?
Auletta: As was true of Microsoft, Google’s engineers have trouble gauging things they can’t quantify — like public fears or politics. The government bear is a greater threat to Google than it is to Microsoft or Amazon, and not just the U.S. government. Google juggles three atomic issues: concentration of power, privacy and copyright.
Americans have long been fearful of corporate power, and companies with clout in Washington have assembled to urge elected officials to circumscribe Google’s power. The mountain of data Google collects is a source of worry, particularly in Europe where privacy laws are more stringent. And every powerful media industry — from newspapers and magazines to books to television to movies to music — has rung the alarm bell to protect their copyrights.
Although Google has become more aware of these threats and has better armed itself to deal with governments, its executives also believe they have powerful Democratic friends in Washington. They would forget, at their peril, that Democrats traditionally warn of Bigness (except big government) and believe in government regulation.
Wilson: Google may well be headed for its own antitrust collision. It is very dominant in search and even more so in search monetization. There are other markets like mapping and related technologies where it appears to be developing a dominant position.
However, I am not big fan of governmental intervention in technology markets. Technology moves very rapidly and one decade’s dominant monopoly is the next decade’s fading giant.
I would prefer our government focus on creating the right environment for innovation and new technology development so that the next Google can come along and change the game again. Things like immigration reform (the start-up visa movement), patent reform (elimination of software patents), net neutrality and open spectrum are all much more important than filing an antitrust case against Google.
Privacy Concerns
Markoff: Not only Google, but a range of new social network sites from Twitter to Facebook are compiling vast databases on individual behavior. Compared to traditional financial institutions and other record keeping organizations, this information is relatively unregulated. Is this a big threat to privacy?
Auletta: Of course. As Google’s search growth slows, and pressures on Facebook and Twitter to finally earn a profit rise, the danger is that advertisers will gain more leverage to demand better data to better target their ads.
Wilson: It is interesting to me to note how our society’s view of privacy is changing. We are sharing things via Facebook and Twitter with the world that nobody would have predicted we would happily share a decade ago. It occurs to me that many people, maybe a majority of people in society, are a lot less concerned with privacy than they are with engagement and interaction. And it is very much a generational thing. The younger we are, the more likely we are to share more and worry about privacy less.
This does not mean that privacy is not important. Facebook’s failure with Beacon is very telling. What users demand on today’s Internet is control over how their information is being shared. They are quite willing to share and get value from sharing. But they want to know how and why and with whom their information is being shared and what value they are getting in return.
So my view of this issue is that we should make it very easy for users to share information that we may view to be “private” but we should also give the users the control over how it is done. My prediction is we will see enormous value unlocked in the coming years from doing this.