Google's Toolbar Keeps Invasive Autolink

So Google has mostly ignored the criticism of its Autolink feature in the new Toolbar. eWeek reports some modifications from the original, but not enough.

The principles here are simple enough. The practicalities are nuanced.

I'm generally on the side of user-modifiable Web content once it's reached the user's computer. Google maintains that's all it's doing here, and that users have ample choice about whether to download the toolbar or not.

Fair enough, but not sufficient. Google commands a special position, and the Toolbar default settings -- which are what most people will use -- are going to give he search company too much influence. This is a natural move for Google, but it should re-emphasize to everyone that the company's motives are the standard ones: looking out for its own interests, period.

Site publishers have never had the absolute ability to determine what readers see. But what Google is doing here goes beyond giving users a way to, say, resize fonts or block popup ads. It's using other people's work for its own -- and its partners' -- commercial purposes in a way that alters the content.

The alterations aren't that big a deal, not today. But it's inevitable that they will grow. This is too powerful a tool not to be used in more expansive ways.

Google still offers me value. But so do the alternatives, and I'm increasingly seeking those out.

Comments

[jerry]

Google still offers me value. But so do the alternatives, and I'm increasingly seeking those out.

It's not bad for Google that you are seeking those out. It's good for Google that you are. Near as I can tell, Google is not yet Microsoft or GM or United Airlines .... and they seem to young enough and successful enough that they actively encourage competition and would encourage you to find or make the net that you want. Almost as if they still believed in a free market!

Anyway, like the dog in Larson's famous cartoon, what I mainly got from this one post was, "Google" "new" "toolbar". To which I have to reply, "Bark, Bark!"

[Seth Finkelstein]

The Power Of Google is becoming frightening. It's like mass media consolidatdion applied to web information.

[Jim Horning]

Dan,

This is one of those Google features that sounds nice, but that I hardly ever find myself using.

Despite your postings on the topic, I'm at a loss to understand why you think it's "invasive." It only links when I ask it to, and I can personally configure the sites it links to. It seems like I am entitled to as much choice in this matter as the creator of the page. (Cf. popup ad blocking.)

Jim H.

[Mark]

Dan,

You spoke of inevitable expansion of uses of site modification through Google Toolbar. Please specifically share your doomsday scenario. I can't see the atom you think Google is building here.

Also, just so I'm clear, would it have okay for a non-profit entity offered a toolbar identical to Google's? Would you still have a problem with it? Is it okay as long as Google doesn't cross a certain line? Where is that line?

Also, how do you feel about tools that scrape ads off web sites, enabling users to essentially freeload content?

I'm not seeing how this feature is going to distort the user experience any more than the current mishmash of toolbars, default search tools and add-ins available for browsers today.

Is it unfair or self-serving that Opera's built-in search bar only searches Amazon.com and not B&N.com? Is it unfair or self-serving that Yahoo's toolbar searches Yahoo Shopping, not Amazon?

And to Seth Finkelstein's comment, why aren't you as concerned, or even more concerned, about Yahoo! as a big scary media company than Google with its much more wide-spanning knowledge of users' music, television, search, email, gaming, dating and social networking, blogging, photos, shopping, bill paying, and IMing behavior? And a media mogul as CEO? Seems to me they've got a MUCH more pervasive media footprint than Google. If you're going to start a witch hunt, at least go after the whole gaggle, not just the Google.

[Bob]

Every time I read this hubbub, I hear webmasters making the same arguments that the MPAA made when Tivo users got accused of stealing television. That's not so surprising, maybe, because webmasters are rushing to defend their business model, it's just that webmasters have only had a business model for a few years, so there's no massive legal apparatus in place to protect them.

The problem I have with your argument is that we shouldn't be worried about Google doing this: we should be worried that self-appointed "digerati" like yourself are trying to kill off what could be a great new business before it even starts. If you look at tools like autolink, or more importantly, if you look at tools like greasemonkey, which allow effectively unlimited changes to both the presentation and content of a website, think of the possibilities! Every user could have a web suited to them, rather than suited to what a webmaster wanted. In a world rife with "remixing" tools like these, webmasters can still make money, provided they continue to provide content AND presentation which is relevant, unobtrusive, and actually beneficial to the user. To this end, you should be encouraging everyone to make more and more of these sorts of tools available: Google, Yahoo, Amazon, yes, even Microsoft, so that it's not ONE company giving users a tool to remix content, there is a thriving marketplace of tools like this. Yes, webmasters will squeal, but I suspect that already being the product of a revolution that's less than ten years old they'll get a clue and find a way to make their model work even better.

As for Google, I have to say that by using the term "invasive" it feel likes you're trying to scare people by conjuring up a bugbear that isn't real. "Invasive" is a good word for software that spies on your behavior without telling you. "Invasive" is also a good word for the monopoly operating system company forcing manufacturers to install their product or to be crushed out of existence. "Invasive" is not, however, a feature on a product that is an optional download for a single browser that is not even enabled by default and must be invoked for each and every use even then!

Again, if your worry is a monopoly (which Google is not) affecting the web browsing experience of users, the solution is not to try to stop companies from making more tools. The solution is to encourage EVERYONE: open source, for profits, users to get in on the action!

[Neil]

I'm also bothered by this move by Google, but I'm very excited about GreaseMonkey. What's the difference? GreaseMonkey is open source. It's managed by the community of users, not by a very cool, but also very secretive, large corporation. It may be possible to modify Google toolbar behavior, but it will never be possible to completely redefine the way a closed source app works the way that users have done with Firefox and Greasemonkey.

[Neil]

Re: Why not get worked up about Yahoo?
Yahoo's influence is marginal compared to Google. Our websites see 80-90% Google traffic and maybe 5% Yahoo traffic. The same concerns apply to some of the things Yahoo does, but Google is the gorilla in this space.