he explores the search for “the perfect search engine”, one that will organize our results to tailor to the individual performing the search. Although its utility makes a lot of sense, the means of getting this information to create this “perfect search engine” are troubling. By capturing the information that flows across the platforms of Web 2.0, search engines, primarily Google, are able to create personalized, tailored and ideal results when we make a search query online. That said, look how far the search engine has come. I remember when no matter what you tried to search, it could be something as straightforward as “cat breeders”, somehow the search engine would come up with a list of pornography as a result…which was only relevant for a select few people. This will never happen when the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0-we will always get results applicable to us. But kind of like those days, we will now be given our results up front in the way they would like them to be presented, wrapped up with a bow, telling us this is the result we wanted. Zimmer describes what Web 2.0 is primarily built upon, and how this encourages us to allow our personal information to become public.
“Much of Web 2.0 is based upon – indeed built upon – increased personal information flows online. Inherent in Web 2.0 evangelism is an overall faith in the logic of the networked masses to be vehicle to provide meaning to your otherwise solitary existence – to give up your information to the Web, and allow various services, APIs, and communities capture, process, and mashup your information flows to make them more useful, more social, and more meaningful."
This monitoring of online social and intellectual activities poses a serious threat to our privacy. It reminds me of that saying “there’s no free lunch;” we may get the results we want faster but we’re giving up a lot in return. Zimmer divides his article into three parts: the perfect search, the perfect reach and the perfect recall. He explains that in order for the perfect search engine to function ideally it must have “perfect reach” and “perfect recall.”
“The result is Search 2.0, a powerful Web search information infrastructure that promises to provide more extensive and relevant search results and information management services to users. But not without a price. Inherent in the Search 2.0 infrastructure are two key externalities: one, the deterioration of what I call “privacy via obscurity” of one’s personal information online; and two, the concentrated surveillance, capture, and aggregation of one’s online intellectual and social activities by a single provider.”
This somewhat compromises our freedom. When we are given the results that a search engine presumes we want, we will be more inclined to click on these results rather than do some further research and stumble upon some potentially interesting information in the process of finding our own perfect result. As a result, our intellectual searches and queries become the intellectual searches and queries of the companies and corporations putting certain links forward, furthering the dynamic of us getting all of our information fed to us through the filter of certain groups and individuals. Yes, we benefit from faster, better, tailored results that fit what our likes and interests are-but they benefit from gathering our personal information, and once again, making a profit off of it. With the perfect reach, they will be able to better place the ads of their sponsoring companies so that they are viewed by the best possible market audience, increasing both the company’s sales as well as their revenue from them. With this service, we also get lazy. It encourages us to search incoherently and make decisions based on the results. If we look at this from an ethical perspective with a utilitarian point of view-its utility is not beneficial to the greatest amount of people and therefore this practice is immoral. This is also not for the greater good of society, as it is presented. We may be more inclined to accept all the information we are given since it has been presented to us as the most useful, relevant information available. This is troubling as well since we should always be sceptical of images and information found on the web because of the technology available to alter and change those things-potentially altering and changing our perspective on the world. The things we read and see are powerful-I’m not sure we want someone dictating what we will be seeing and reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment