Lapizuli - 8:42 pm on Jun 12, 2013 (gmt 0)
Do we need, as a community, to establish better dialogue with Google? If so, a proper way to do that. To keep the signal to noise ratio down.
I'm afraid I don't think we need better communication with Google, except temporarily. Temporarily, it would be nice. What I think we need is an alternative to Google, and soon - as in, the next 5 years. And it will happen.
That is because, through no fault of its own, Google's lost its vision, and isn't in a financial position to regain it. That means Google cannot carry us forward. Cannot. Not "is too greedy to" or "is too stupid to." Can. Not.
Admittedly, I have strange reasons for thinking this.
1) Google - and Amazon, and eBay, and Microsoft, and all the "Big Straddlers," as I call them - are straddling two shifting economic models that I like to think of as ships. There's the old ship, based on the railroad/car economic model we've been living with for about a century. It's kind of floundering in the ocean. Then there's the digital economic model, a brand new ship that's barely safe to board. Because this is a transition period, not a stability period, at the point of success, any of these corporations must, to survive, stop straddling both models and plant itself in the currently stronger economic model. Because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (I joke about it, but entropy really does explain these patterns) the old model is fighting for everything it's worth to survive and is powered by a huge corpus of a generation that holds the resources, time, energy, and passion to give it one last go. So Google, Amazon, and the rest are re-committing to the old ship - though in a modified way. They must preserve their position close to the new ship, so that when it's ready, they can board safely. And they can even help. But they're doing that by being firmly planted on the old ship, which limits their vision and priorities to being closer to home.
2) So what this means is we're moving away from traditional centralized economic and financial centers, both corporate and government (structured this way largely because of 20th century land and air technology) and toward a huge redistribution of economics shaped by the lightning-fast, space-jumping digital technology. Everything is changing, from how we shop for our curry leaves to how we meet Mr. Right to how we make manufacturers rich.
3) We're moving toward globalism. This means an upheaval for every darn governmental and corporate infrastructure on earth.
4) We are already in a depression. People cannot continue to afford to invest in the old model. That is why people are crying out loudly against either government or corporations. Both are essentially the same thing - large, centralized, old-model structures that aren't capable of distributing resources like the new model.
5) Google cannot afford to invest fully in the new model. Being scalable (scaleable?) is absolutely critical for Google because their success is based on the existence of the new ship, which is too vast to manage with the current weak infrastructure (no global system of accountability of identity, for example). They'd rather have a broken, scalable system than a "fair" system that breaks them.
Those are my thoughts. I don't want to touch any political hot buttons, and I'm truly not making any political statement here, except saying "It's all screwy and will be for another 20 years."