I really enjoy reading books about internet companies, especially how they started, became successful etc. I am interested because I myself run a website that I hope to grow into something big some day. That said, I have been aware of some of the rumblings about problems with Google's influence as it turns from spunky startup into arrogant behemoth - the Microsoft of the 2000's, by some accounts. So I was interested to read this book, which purports to dig into the dark side of Google in some depth. And, to be fair, it does do that! However, I couldn't finish the book. Here's why: It's tedious and repetitive, like one huge single-note rant. In the eyes of this author, Google is completely and totally bad. Every single thing that Google does has a nefarious motive, to steal our privacy or dominate the world or squash competition. Now the really sad thing is that he does make some good points - Google does seem to be doing some of these things, either intentionally or not. But Scott Cleland really shoots himself in the foot by making it all just a bit too much like one of those homeless guys who stands on a street corner wearing a tinfoil hat, with the incredibly detailed sign telling us all about how the Bilderberg group is controlling our lives. When every single page, every single paragraph either starts or ends with yet another version of the statement "Google cannot be trusted", it just gets really old very quickly.
This single-minded rant goes off the rails on numerous occasions. For example, he talks about how Google runs its servers using Open Source software, and actually tries to portray this as being fundamentally insecure. Well, this is something I actually know a fair bit about (I'm a software developer and I use Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl etc for my own website), and it's just laughable to try to say that a system is insecure simply because it uses Open Source. That's the sort of smoke and mirrors I would have expected out of Microsoft... back in the 1990's. But most people who know what they are talking about recognize that Open Source systems like Linux are, if anything, more secure than their closed source equivalents, since the code is open and anybody can inspect it (and fix it). With many eyes, all bugs become shallow - and there are a *lot* of people working to make tools like Linux better and more secure. With a closed source system, you don't know what sorts of security vulnerabilities or backdoors there might be under the covers. It's true that any system can be insecure if it's not configured properly, but to try to pretend that it might be insecure simply because it's Open Source is just wrong - and it tends to discredit whatever other points the author is trying to make. If he's saying this about something that I actually know a fair bit about, then what will I be missing when he talks about other stuff that I'm not so familiar with (e.g. book publishing)?
One of the biggest problems with the book is that the author seems to simply refuse to believe that anybody at Google is doing what they do for any reason other than to dominate the world and steal your personal information so they can sell more ads to advertisers. The sad thing is that yes, there is a component of this that we do need to watch and be wary of. But the real truth of the matter is that Google is run by a bunch of geeks, many of whom simply love building things. The fact that they have found a way to integrate this with a money making machine (the ads system) doesn't negate the fact that they are geeks who love making cool stuff. I do think that there is probably a fair amount of self delusion going on at Google - they do tend to take the rug out from other small startups who might have a cool idea for a website by simply providing their own version for free, much in the same way that Microsoft did it back in the last century. Is this ok? Is it monopolistic? It's a good question, which deserves a good, even handed, clear headed look at all sides of the situation. This book isn't that discussion, it's just a one-sided rant that focuses on one concept ("Google is not to be trusted") and then latches onto it like a pitbull and doesn't let go. Like I said, this gets really tiresome after a while, and it is made even more frustrating by the fact that as you wade through the book, you will actually come across some good points every now and then. After a while, though, I just couldn't bring myself to pick up the book again, because it is just such a downer. Imagine a very intense, single minded person ranting at you in monotone for hours - that is what this book is like. I can anticipate with sure accuracy what the next page will contain, and it ain't anything good or positive, that's for sure.
Another criticism of Google that rang somewhat hollow was that they are "radical" - the author uses this word several times, and I think he means it to be perjorative, which implies to me a rather conservative mindset. So Google is to be denigrated for trying to do something different, and better? WTF? Innovation and doing things differently is how silicon valley works. The geeks love being creative and coming up with new stuff, is that so bad? Sure, criticise Google's increasing arrogance (the bits about the way Google bulldozed its way into copying books without the publishers' or authors' consent was quite interesting, for example), but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Have some balance, just because a company does some dickish things it doesn't mean that every single thing the company does is evil. It's usually a bit more complex than that. In my opinion, the problem at Google is not so much that it has some kind of nefarious masterplan to take over the world and make us all slaves, but rather that the people who work there tend to be very smart, rather arrogant, perhaps a little clueless at times with respect to social interactions (e.g. when they made everybody's gmail contact list public by default) - i.e. classic geeks. Another problem seems to be that the people who work there only tend to hire other people who think in exactly the same way. This might seem like a good idea on the surface (after all, who wouldn't want to hire only smart people), but in reality I think it has produced a bit of a monoculture which isn't all that healthy. The downside of extreme, diamond edged intelligence might be that such people can tend to be more than a little bit oblivious to the softer, more fuzzy areas of life - e.g. social relationships, how people outside the Google bubble think, live and interact with each other, how the world sees the increasing dominance of Google, how it's maybe not so cute any more when you implement some little idea at a huge company like Google, when making that little idea freely available might squash a number of little companies that were trying to make a living based on that concept.
Yes, Google needs to be watched. Yes, Google is doing some very iffy things, but this book tries to portray the company as being just monotone evil. The truth is, I think, a bit more complex than that.
I am currently reading "The Googlization of Everything" by Siva Vaidhyanathan, which looks to be a more level headed critical look at Google and its effects on our society.
