I was really pleased when I learned that the Tech Working Group at Occupy Boston was encouraging working groups to move away from Google Groups and use real mailing lists instead.
It has struck me from early on that people using googleware in support of Occupy-related tasks seemed very much counter to the fundamental values and behavior of the movement. Of course, Google provides “free” tools, and many people are really familiar with them and unaware of alternatives, so why not use them?
This rant has been a long time coming, because people keep insisting that really, I ought to just sign right up for yet-another Google Group, or login to Google to read yet-another ugly Google doc, and I am tired of explaining why I will not, and why I think people involved in an anti-corporate domination movement also should not.
Here is a very brief list of some reasons:
Google isn't interested in being compatible with your browser, unless your browser is new enough. Older version? Like . . . Firefox 6? (That link told me my FF 6 is too old. W.T.F.) Well, things just might not work. Too bad.
Oh, and Google might kill your favorite application at any time. Perhaps because they've collected enough data to serve their purposes, or maybe they just want their engineers to focus on something else. Miss it? Too bad.
As if poor compatibility and killing useful services at any time isn't enough, there are plenty of bigger, more egregious problems with Google:
Google’s business model is bad for privacy. They could keep your data secure, but they won't - they wouldn't be able to make as much money of off advertising. By behaving this way, they set a precedent for all other companies providing “free” Internet services.
This contributes - very badly - to whether or not people have a “reasonable” expectation of privacy, which comes up when you are dealing with a Fourth Amendment issue. Like a "please turn over all the data you have on these users' online activity because ZOMG TERRORISM" (see also: Twitter and Wikileaks). The less privacy you have online, the less you can reasonably expect privacy online.
As a US company, they are legally required to respond to requests made under the Patriot Act and other awful, invasive legal requests. If they didn't store so much data, they couldn't turn it over – but again, storing less data would be bad for Google’s profits.
Google’s business model is bad for economic equality. (I originally found this article via this diary.)
The article points out that "inequality in information begets a massive transfer of wealth from individuals to corporations and to their shareholders" and "privacy is about economic power and inequality," and what does Google do? Trade your privacy for the big bucks. Online marketing, improved by behavioral tracking, enables price discrimination, which "directly enhances the most traditional kinds of racial discrimination." By behaving this way, Google sets a precedent for all other companies providing “free” things on the series of tubes.
Google puts its workers into a caste system. They treat some of their employees fantastically well – but the contractors they hire are banned from many of the perks that regular Google employees get, and the lowest caste of contractors, who perform hours and hours of data entry, including in the controversial Google Book Search project, get the dirtiest end of the stick. Here’s some interesting analysis of that story. It's pretty typical corporate treatment of temps/contractors, but as someone who has been working as a contractor for several years (though not for Google), I take this a little more personally than Google's other offenses.
Google's "real names" policy is terrible for free speech, equality, and diversity. So far, this only affects Profiles, Plus, Picasa, Reader, and the recently killed Buzz, and it's being implemented so poorly you might wonder if they are trying to piss people off. But by following Facebook’s lead in this regard, Google enforces a precedent that is being followed by plenty of other online services who claim “we want real people, in a community where people feel safe sharing and being real, with none of those fake people with fake names," and force you to link a Facebook account to their shiny new toy, or otherwise enforce a "looks like a real (Western) name" policy.
Worried about identity theft? An abusive ex or family member? Stalker in your past? Repressive government? Conservative boss who doesn’t know you're queer/vote Democrat/are an atheist? Or any of the many, many other reasons you might not want to put your wallet name online? Well, I guess those "real names, send us ID to verify," parts of Google, and the rest of the "real names" 'net, aren’t for you. Too bad. Pseudonyms are only used by trolls anyway, amiright?
Curious about how Google makes its money? Which words sell for the most? Here, have a chart!
The top 6 most valuable words, accounting for 55.6% of Google's ad income:
Insurance
Loans
Mortgage
Attorney
Credit
Lawyer
Wall Street wasn’t the only corporate monster that is doing very well, thank you very much, in the midst of the financial crisis. You might even say Google is profiting from that crisis.
If you want even more fun reading, send your favorite search engine out (I like Duck Duck Go) to get results for “google monoculture” and “google monopoly.” Happy reading!
Google is huge, they have a lot of influence, and that is why their misbehavior is more of a problem than when other, smaller companies misbehave in similar ways. "Well, Google does it, and people still use Google, so why shouldn't we do that, too?"
All in all, the way Google conducts business is terrible for free speech, equality, and diversity, terrible for the democratic nature of the web, and terrible for democracy, period.
[Facebook is also terrible in many of the same ways, but at least Facebook hasn’t invaded nearly as many corners of the web as Google. Ditto Twitter. Yet.]
[Want a list of alternatives to googleware? Check this out. And look here for ways to improve your privacy online, both while using Google and in general.]