Top Ten List: Number One (LibTech Keynote)

For those who may be just now bumping into my blog, I'll fill you in: my most recent posts have been recapping two conferences I attended in March, the Iowa Library Association/ACRL Conference and the Library Technology Conference (hosted by Macalester College in the Twin Cities). I decided, since I attended ten sessions between the two conferences, to do my own top ten list of Library-Related Conference Sessions (a la The Late Show with David Letterman)! Here's the last post of my list!

From the Library Technology Conference, in reverse chronological order:

1. "The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry)" by Siva Vaidhyanathan, University of Virginia

• What does Google do in our society? Google's mission is to organize information and make it universally accessible; however, inherent in the organization of information is the (unintended or intended) hiding of some information and revelation of others. This can be easily seen in the "Google Bombing" process where an organized campaign to raise the page rank of a website is implemented.
  
• Why do we (I) love Google so much (and I really do), if it is hiding information from us? Consumers tend to have blind faith in Google. It provides some pretty amazing services, but are we receiving this speed, power, and convenience at the cost of something greater? At times the question of regulating Google has arisen. What once began with strict regulations (attached to the use of NSF grant funds, copyright, and imposed by the FCC) has shifted, in part due to the increasing size and influence of Google.
  
• The first model of content delivery: Google began as a rank-and-link search engine wherein the material lived beyond Google's control, and were not responsible for content. The service they provided was that of connecting two points.
  
• The second model of content delivery: Google expanded to host and deliver information providing users with information storage via YouTube, Blogger, Google Buzz, etc. The information is integrated within Google's search results and requires registration to upload content. Consumers are the ones who monitor appropriate use (i.e. reporting copyright violations).
  
• The third model is to capture and serve: With advances in Google Maps' street view, Google Earth, and the Books project (all stored on a Google-owned server, and integrated into search results), is there a greater level of responsibility for Google to adhere to copyright and fair use laws? Vaidhyanathan noted that, for the most part, Google uploads whatever content they think is part of their mission to make available, and those not wishing to have their content freely available must "opt out" in order for Google to remove it. (This can also be said for social networking privacy issues, i.e. Facebook, where information must be made private as opposed to choosing to make certain information public.) In this, the third model, Google is no longer a conduit for knowledge, but rather plays a greater role.
  
• Going back to the management of information, whenever information is managed, editorial (value) decisions are made by people. According to Vaidhyanathan, Google seems to not care that "Jew Watch News" is employing Google bombing techniques, but in Germany such sites would not be displayed because of strict laws against distributing hate speech. There has to have been a modification in the algorithm. In the instance of Vaidhyanathan's example, "Jew Watch News," he asserted that Google chooses this morn hands-off approach. He continued saying Google states their ranking is determined by their algorithm but don't reflect the "beliefs and practices of those who work at Google. But, the ethical question is not whether they agree with the content, but rather, is that Google's responsibility here in the United States to not only allow this page to be searchable using their site, but also to be promoted as a result of their code? Google recently reworked their algorithm which lowered the rankings of websites considered "low quality" (i.e. E-How.com) and yet the website Martin Luther King Jr. - A True Historical Examination remained in the top five results when I searched "Martin Luther King Junior."
  
• Google continues to add personalization, localization, user satisfaction, and speed to their services, but do we as consumers have to hold them to higher standards when it comes to corporate social responsibility? This was one of many ethical questions Vaidhyanathan put forth, questioning not only Google's responsibility, but also our responsibility as consumers. At this point the solution is to remind ourselves of corporate weaknesses (and our own weaknesses as consumers) and diversify our searching in order to diversify our results.