|
Don't Be Evil:
A Google Freedom of Information Act
July 12, 2004
2004 could be a big year for Internet search giant Google.
Its
IPO will be one of the biggest crossover business,
technology and social news stories of the year. The launch of
its
Gmail service could put the company in the forefront of
web-based email services while creating a major new revenue
stream. Its
pervasiveness among users (“to
Google”) and advertisers alike could make Google a likely
candidate to join those lofty iconic, market-defining brands
like Kleenex, Xerox, Coke, and Rollerblade.
Or not.
Instead, Google’s business practices could put it in a
different category of American companies altogether, firms with
names like Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and Adelphia. No, Google has
not broken the law, but for many of its fans and followers has
done something even worse. Google has violated its own corporate
creed of “Don’t
Be Evil.”
In arbitrarily and dramatically limiting its readers’ access
to opinion speech on the Internet, Google has demonstrated a
disturbing lack of social responsibility. It’s not too late,
though, for Google to do the right thing. To restore its
reputation and return to its users’ good graces, Google will
need to take some dramatic and very public steps. Let’s call it
a “Google Freedom of
Information Act.”
Google Doing Evil
As previously reported in “Google’s
Gag Order”, Google is on a collision course with its
advertisers and free speech on the Internet. Its uneven,
arbitrary and after the fact application of its “advocates
against” standard has led Google to drop a wide range of
long-time Google Adwords advertisers, including Perrspectives,
The Body Shop founder
Anita Roddick, workers trying to
unionize Wal-Mart, the environmental group
Oceana, an anti-Bush
political novelty site, and
a host of others.
Google states that its
editorial guidelines feature a provision allowing it to
terminate advertisers whose sites feature “unacceptable content”
including “language that advocates against an individual, group
or organization.” These criteria are not applied at the time
advertisers submit their Adwords ads to Google. Instead, the
Google Adwords team reviews some ads and advertisers on an ad
hoc basis only after the ads are already running.
The result is inevitably uneven treatment of Google
advertisers:
the left-of-center Perrspectives is dropped; mysteriously,
MichaelMooreHatesAmerica.com is not. And
size does matter after all. The opinion speech of The New
York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, The
Republican Party, John Kerry for President, Christianity Today,
The American Conservative, and others is just fine with Google.
In any event, the vague “advocates against” standard and its
seemingly random and post-submission application make Google
advertisers extremely susceptible to the organized protests of
people or groups with a political agenda. Evenly applied,
Google’s standard would result in it having to drop hundreds of
advertisers, including every newspaper, magazine, opinion
journal, blog, political party, campaign, and even religious
organization.
GFOIA: The Google
Freedom of Information Act
Google, of course, is neither the government nor a “common
carrier.” It has no obligation to respect the constitutionally
protected speech of its advertisers. But as the Internet’s de
facto gatekeeper to readers, customers and communities, Google
has a social responsibility to be an honest, fair and
transparent broker, not a 21st century censor. If not, actual
governments, in the United State, the European Union and
elsewhere might take matters into their own hands.
To “not be evil”, Google must perform a delicate balancing
act. First, it needs to balance the needs of its readers with
those of its advertisers. On the one hand, Google should provide
its readers with the broadest possible range of information,
speech and products, without alienating users’ sensitivities and
community standards. On the other hand, Google must provide its
potential Adwords, Gmail and Adsense advertisers with clear and
concise editorial standards that are equally applied regardless
of the partner’s size or viewpoint. Google must also balance
different international standards, as
its experience with Nazi memorabilia, the Church of
Scientology, and China show. And for Google, the ultimate
tightrope walk is to avoid any bad publicity that could impact
its much-hyped IPO.
More than anything, Google must provide transparency to its
users, advertisers and business partners. Whether the issue is
search rankings, advertising relevancy, ad placement, or
“acceptable” site content, the global Google community must know
in advance how both Google’s automated tools and human decision
makers will impact them.
Fortunately, Google can navigate these turbulent waters and
turn a growing customer and public relations morass into a
victory for all involved. This Internet “happy ending” will
require new editorial standards, changed advertising processes
and the active involvement of Google’s users and advertisers
worldwide. Call it a “Google Freedom of Information Act.”
The Google Freedom of Information Act (GFOIA) has four
components:
1. Move to a “Clear and Present
Danger” Editorial Standard
As should be clear by now, Google’s “language that advocates
against” standard for advertisers is vague and dangerously
broad. Evenly applied, today’s policy would require Google to
bar thousands of current and potential advertisers. Applied in
the piecemeal, ad hoc process as it is today, Google creates the
perception of bias, unequal treatment, and de facto censorship
while leaving itself vulnerable to manipulation.
Google can remedy this situation by moving to a new, clearer
editorial standard. The “advocates against” policy should be
replaced by a narrower guideline barring as advertisers only
those sites that (a) offer products which are inherently
dangerous; (b) advocate violence against individuals or groups;
or (c) appeal solely to prurient interests. Such a “clear and
present danger” standard would still allow Google to refuse
advertising from gun dealers, pornographers, and terrorists. And
while protecting community standards, Google would provide
access to the broadest range of opinion speech across the
political spectrum.
2. Approve All Advertisers Prior to
Ad Publication
One of the greatest strengths of Google advertising programs
also makes them ripe for subversion and the perception of
arbitrariness. Unlike television, radio, print and virtually all
Internet media, Google allows marketers to begin running
advertisement almost immediately. Because advertisers and their
ads are not screened prior to submission, web sites can see
instant, same-day results from ads placed on Google. Editorial
review occurs only after the fact in a process that dramatically
lags the number and timing of new advertisers. That’s where
bias, real or perceived, arises.
This “post facto” process should be changed. Google should
move to approving all advertisers prior to publishing their ads
on Google sites and its distribution partners. For example,
Google could implement a 24-hour waiting period for advertisers
(whose sites would be reviewed by humans) while still using
automated tools to screen inappropriate ad text. This is no
doubt a painful compromise: Google would have to invest in new
editorial staff while advertisers would lose the benefit of
“instant marketing.”
3. Create Regional User and
Advertiser Advisory Boards
Google can quickly turn disgruntled users, advertisers and
business partners into its biggest cheerleaders through actively
engaging them in the process of creating its editorial
standards. Google should publicly recruit a cross-section of
users and advertisers to Editorial and Advertising Advisory
Boards. These regional groups (mirroring Google’s North
American, EU, and other operations) would be adjuncts of the
Google organization, and provide feedback on and input into the
Google editorial policies. These advisory boards could also be
used for consultation in escalating more controversial cases of
perceived censorship.
Google’s Advisory Boards should do more than lend the stamp
of legitimacy and transparency to its policies. Advisor slots
should be substantive, much sought after, and fun. Virtual,
electronic meetings and reviews could be supplemented with
annual face-to-face meetings. As is common throughout the
software industry, these informal advisory boards could be
compensated with Google logo items, program discounts, or small
annual honoraria.
4. Publicize the GFOIA Effort
To gain the full PR benefits of its Freedom of Information
Act efforts, Google should aggressively publicize its turnaround
on free speech issues. Press releases and briefings should
stress the company’s ongoing commitment to doing “no evil” and
that Google’s growth naturally leads it to continually reexamine
the needs of users and advertisers. Google could solicit
advisory board members through the promotion of an online
submission process, including opportunities to provide
recommendations and suggestions. Google could also publicly
announce and profile some or all of its advisors, contingent of
course on privacy protections the advisors themselves might
choose.
Today’s Google is, as George W. Bush might say, an
“evil-doer.” But it doesn’t have to be that way. By defining
new, narrower editorial guidelines for advertisers that still
satisfy user standards, by approving those advertisers in
advance of ad publication, and by creating an Editorial Advisory
Boards from among its reader and advertisers, Google can repent
for its free speech sins. And by showing real social
responsibility, Google could do more than not being evil; it
could actually do good.
|
