Google and the states of things

By now, everyone knows about the bizarre Google racist Michelle Obama picture confuzzle. It's strange that Google, as a theoretically anonymous and nonbiased purveyor of information, apologized at all. I mean, what does Google have to do with its own search results, anyway?

Friends, this is not the first time good old Googs has come under fire. Delhi's summer heat was nothing compared to the August flare-up online when Google Maps started showing parts of Arunachal Pradhesh - an Indian territory that China contests - in the Chinese language. Google made amends for that too, and has now hit on the strange solution of showing different maps of Arunachal Pradesh to Indian and Chinese users. As if, by mere wishing and online shenanigans, we can all pretend that we exist in our own altered realities on our own separate planets. Nice job trying to please everyone, Google, but such efforts never end well. (I can see the UN debate now: India: As you can tell from this map, Arunachal Pradesh is widely considered to be part of Indian territory. China: Objection! As you can tell from this map, Arunachal is as Chinese as Confucius. Ban Ki Moon: Those aren't the same map? Quickly Googles South Korea only to discover it's been relocated to Mars, Googles himself and discovers that he has died and Kofi Annan has resumed duties at the UN Sergey Brin: Don't look at me, man. You all did this.) (Or the awkwardness for well-meaning, unkempt backpackers of the college variety. Backpacker 1: I really need to ask for directions. Anyone have that Chinese phrasebook? Backpacker 2: What Chinese phrasebook? We're in India, dude. Backpacker 1: What the hell are you talking about? Did you even bother to Google this place before we came? Backpacker 2: What the hell am I talking about? What the hell are YOU talking about?)

And why do people care so much what Google thinks? Google controls access to, in essence, the world's biggest textbook. Half the things I've learned in the past few months, I learned because Google sorted and pointed the way. So, if Google defines what we know, then it's sort of disheartening to think that, like other textbooks, it can't reflect our specific moral preferences. The winners write the history books, but everyone writes the Internet. Hence the need for Google to appease users by putting moral qualifiers on its search results.

Of course, Google's apology might also be its beard. In both of these moral conundrums (conundra?), Google offered a solution that neither encompassed nor even addressed the key questions at hand. Which is: what does it mean that Google gave these racists a platform when they clearly didn't deserve one? Google did the only thing it could do. It slapped a sticky note atop the pic, saying it didn't agree with whatever throwback urge the photo represented.

But that doesn't really change anything, does it? That's the unfortunate fact of the Internet. It's like a middle school popularity contest. Or any democracy, really. The results depend on who votes, not on who has to live with the results.

In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, Google's answer was even less satisfactory. They compromised, of course. But by not taking a stand, Google took a stand. Once again it cleaved to the principle of "whatever the people want."

I don't quibble with the decisions. What else could Google do? But in an age when the Internet shapes and informs our decisions, what we can't afford to do is pretend that the gateway to the world's greatest information resource doesn't matter. Yes, we have access to more information than ever. But how will we use it? Sort it? Analyze it? Because if we don't decide this, then the Internet (and Google) will make those decisions for us. If anything, Google's laissez-faire approach reminds us that it's more important than ever to practice source criticism, and that morality, unlike search results, can't be decided by an algorithm.