“Reality” by Google

Ankit Tharwani, Annalaissa Johnson, Guillermo Monge

MIDS 231­2

Overview

Over the past fifteen years, Google has developed an exponentially growing impact on our methods of searching for, gathering, and relaying data. As the company grew from a small search engine querying websites for mildly relevant data to a technology giant that offers applications for everything from thermostats to streaming video, Google managed to claim the most coveted spot in the industry for how the public incorporates data into their lives. While they offer state­of­the­art tools and unparalleled convenience to users, the extent of their reach raises the question as to how safe it is to trust one corporation with almost every piece of data defining our identities. Additionally, as Google’s reach continues to grow, society treats the collection, distribution and retrieval of data differently, allowing it to affect our decisions and sentiments. This paper seeks to address Google’s impact on our identities through its extensive reach of applications and products, as well as how the boundaries and limitations of Google can project onto our world views. By studying these aspects of how Google affects daily life, we hope to recognize the best ways to actively participate in the symbiotic relationship between humanity and Google.

Impact on Identity and Privacy

Human­Technology Interaction

Search engines don’t show us

what people think, rather they

lend us insight into how people

think.

This quotation from the film Ex Machina1 best summarizes what the connection of the ​ ​ vast amount of data that google has can holistically amount to. Not only does the information that Google gathers tell a lot about the description of a person (physically, mentally, demographically), but it actually provides a profile into how that user makes decisions, conducts business and personal relationships, and expresses creativity.

Specifically, search engines alone can impact our contemporary selves through defining our notion of distance to knowledge similarly to how social media has now distinguished geographical distance from emotional closeness. Rather than following breadcrumbs of citations in articles of scholarly journals to original sources, we can use search engines to find an original source immediately, along with multitudes of other related sources.

Rather than frequenting a restaurant to determine the most popular and crowded times during the week, we can search for the restaurant and immediately see Google’s

1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/ analytics for popularity by the day of the week and hour. Likewise, instead of waiting for the 8th minute to listen to traffic information on the radio, we can use maps to access real time data from the roads.

This change in the culture of how we view the convenience of information and data comes with the consequences (both positive and negative) of changing our mindset in how close we are to answers. As a result, these resources (Google search, Google maps, Zagat, etc) shape our reality and how we view the real world. Augmented reality, such as viewing notations on Google Earth or traffic information on Google maps, is a more obvious example of how we can become immediately accustomed to receiving information about real world entities. In a more subtle way, however, the use of apps like Zagat, Yelp, and Google Reviews now quietly regulates which restaurant we pick.

Even basic analytics, like the popularity of a restaurant throughout the day that appears on a Google search for a restaurant, can determine the choices that we make (like when to schedule dinner), on a daily basis.

Because society modifies its behaviors, choices, and expectations based on the information received from these applications, it’s clear that search engines and the related products serve to shape society, while society in turn shapes the search engines with the data it provides. To get more insight into typical use across Google products, we developed a survey to gauge information on frequency, depth, and related byproducts of continuous use. Survey on Typical Usage and Thoughts on Privacy

While Google has proven to be a powerful and convenient tool, its recent developments and acquisitions in the past decade have gathered a wide user base: 1.17 billion unique visitors used google search in December of 20122, and more than 500 million people have gmail accounts3. With such a breadth of user adoption, the situation begs the question as to whether people realize how much information they are actually providing

Google through all of its subsidiaries. Google has an impressive number of user applications and tools, including the social media network Google+, thermostat Nest,

YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail, Chrome, Zagat, Google drive, and Google Play. While a user may think that the information he provides to one particular application doesn’t amount to enough for the data conglomerate to identify him, it is possible that through all of the devices, there is enough data to build a complete profile of a person and determine behaviors. In our look into Google’s impact on identity, we wanted to find information about the typical usage of Google entities as well as consider the impact on our identity has on the public’s perception of personal data privacy.

To assess the typical usability of our peers from all age ranges and technological literacies, we developed a survey (see appendix) that asked demographic information for use in analysis, basic questions about the frequency and intensity of usage for various Google products, questions about how the removal of Google products from the

2 http://www.statista.com/chart/899/unique­users­of­search­engines­in­december­2012/ 3 http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/01/technology/gmail/ ​ marketplace would affect daily life, and questions about the limits of Google’s resources. The questions aimed to not only get real data about personal usage of

Google products, but also to gauge user understanding of how much of their personal data is available to Google. Additionally, we wanted to measure the respondents’ typical reliance on Google products by measuring impact on a life without Google.

The survey was a success with 75 responses from age group 15­19 all the way to 60+, and was geographically diverse with respondents from the United States, Mexico, India,

Japan and Europe. Fifty percent of the respondents were in the 20­29 age range and

47% were currently living in the United States or Canada. We asked respondents to self report their own ability in using Google search on a scale from 1 to 5 and received answers in every increment, with 55% responding 4 out of the “expert” level 5.

In determining the usage of primary Google products by respondents, we asked how many accounts each held for Gmail, YouTube, and Google+. The overwhelming majority (96%) of survey takers held at least one Gmail account, with 43% of total survey takers holding multiple Gmail accounts. The figures for YouTube saw a slight decrease, with 81% holding at least one account and 15% holding multiple accounts.

The least popular of the main applications was Google+, for which only 67% of the respondents held an account. Over 89% (67 out of the 75 respondents) held at least two of the three major Google accounts, meaning that Google has the ability to gather data on these people from different sources and connect that data through account linkage, IP information, name profile, and more.

While information about the number of accounts held by respondents is helpful, we really wanted to evaluate the usage frequency to better understand how much data

Google could collect on the user. Google search was by far the most popular Google product by our survey takers, with 93% claiming that they used the tool daily (with an additional 6% responding “weekly”). Gmail and Chrome were also popular for daily usage, garnering 84% and 81% respectively. Finally, Google maps and YouTube pulled in moderate usage with a respective 87% and 91% of respondents using the tools at least weekly. The frequency analysis of the responses shows that people use these products enough for Google to potentially gather substantial information from each source. For example, Google searches, video searches on YouTube, and e­mail subjects between friends that all include the terms “Taylor Swift” could conceivably create an alert on Google’s side to use this information to develop targeted ads for the user.

After asking about the frequency of use for 16 different Google products, we asked the participants to reflect on the reach that the company has through the different applications. We phrased the question “Are you concerned [Google] may have too much information?”, and allowed users to check multiple boxes. Fifty­four percent of users responded that they didn’t think Google would misuse personal information, leaving 46% to doubt the safety of their personal data. Almost 22% indicated that they were unaware of how many of these common products were owned and operated by

Google, and 37% claimed that it was inevitable that Google would eventually have access to too much of their personal information.

The survey allowed us to get insight into Google’s reach through multiple applications within a small group of users; we found that for the vast majority of respondents, Google had access to personal information through many different sources. This analysis in depth and frequency of use allowed us to better develop our research on how Google impacts our identity as a society.

Examples of Privacy Concerns

With Google products infiltrating our lives at seemingly every turn, the issue of privacy is a recurring one. The concern from holding accounts and providing streams of data through separate products is one concern, but there are also just as many threats to personal data security within individual products.

Recently, Gmail announced the imminent release of a “deep learning” tool in Gmail;

Wired describes it as “a form of artificial intelligence that’s rapidly reinventing a wide range of online services”4 . This feature will analyze replies from Gmail users in order to

4 http://www.wired.com/2015/11/google­is­using­ai­to­create­automatic­replies­in­gmail/ ​ algorithmically craft e­mail responses for people receiving similar messages. The article points out that “the system isn’t offering a canned catalog of replies, [but instead] the AI really is ‘reading’ your email and coming up with what it judges the most appropriate original response in the context of a specific message.”5 While this feature will inevitably become another key component that impacts society’s relationship with data and information gathering, it also begs the question of whether Google should have the ability to read our personal correspondences and collect data on our sentiments, conversations, and even tones of the message.

The Nest thermostat is another example that challenges ethical considerations; as a

Google owned subsidiary, Nest is an artificial intelligence “learning” thermostat that adjusts temperatures according to the user’s preferences and at different times of day to conserve energy. While a user’s preferences regarding temperature may not seem too private, the information regarding the time of day when a household member is typically home (gathered through Nest motion detection) and daily routines could be considered wildly invasive if misused.

Google search also has indicators that the searches conducted while on browsers linked to our accounts follow us wherever we go. A simple search for a service or product in Google will later yield ads in Facebook that are targeted to that particular search. In addition to the search data provided to marketing agencies for ads, Mashable

5 http://www.wired.com/2015/11/google­is­using­ai­to­create­automatic­replies­in­gmail/ ​ points out that “if you click on an ad that results from a search query, marketers can use

[tools] to pick out keywords from your searches to better target you on the social network”.6 Not only can the advertisers see what a user searched for, but actually the specific keywords that resulted in the successful click.

Impact on Identity and Privacy Conclusion

The rapid growth in Google’s product line is an important step in society’s increasingly integrated relationship with data and information accessibility. The abundance of resources allows the public to access information quickly and effectively; as a result, society has begun to make choices and shape their lives around the data provided by the various outlets. This impact manifests in the changes we make to our routines and the way that we rely on this technology to run our daily lives. The influence these products have in our lives is also concerning given the related privacy concerns that come along with being so connected and reliant on instant data and information.

6 http://mashable.com/2014/06/04/google­facebook­ads­search/#Fy9UB_lvCZqU ​ Impact of Google’s Boundaries

Overview and Survey Responses

Previously, we demonstrated how the many features of Google’s products can impact our identities by changing the way that society thinks, reacts to, and examines data; by juxtaposing the features with Google’s limitations, we can also see how the public’s lives are confined and limited by the innate boundaries of the products. For example, if

Google maps or Zagat does not recognize a business and does not return it in a search, people will be less likely to visit that business over time, especially if they’ve become accustomed to searching Zagat reviews or using Google maps prior to becoming a patron. A large part of the limitations that extend to users include the overwhelming reliance on these data sources to provide information that could be gathered in more traditional ways (e.g. walking around an area to find a restaurant, rather than only visiting restaurants that have superior Yelp reviews).

To gauge user reliance on Google’s products, we included a “Life without Google” section in the usability survey used in the impact section. The questions asked the respondents which activities would be most affected in day­to­day life, which products could easily be replaced (by activity type) as well as questions gathering the general reaction of the respondents to a life without Google. Each question could have multiple answers selected.

The respondents felt that their lives would be most impacted in their work and leisure if

Google products were no longer available (81% and 62% respectively). Only 27% thought that their social lives would be affected significantly, demonstrating that other social media outlets may be more popular. This was further intensified by the responses to the second question, where 49% of the respondents said that they would be able to easily replace Google products with other products for social purposes. Leisure was the second easiest aspect of life to replace Google with other products, but respondents expected work and study to be more difficult to find other resources for, with only 39% and 15% respectively saying it would be easy to find replacement resources. Two answers stood out on the final question asking about reactions to “Life without Google”;

The two most popular answers were “Information would be harder to get to” (60%) and

“Searching for data would be cumbersome, but only until we got accustomed” (48%).

These two answers indicate the deep reliance people have on Google products by showing that it would be inconvenient to use other resources to find information.

The survey continued to ask if users had employed any other search engine before, and with what frequency. Only 21% of respondents indicated that they used Yahoo search engine “From time to time” or more, and 27% for Bing. The other options for AltaVista and DuckDuckGo were widely unused by our survey base. Such a strong dependence on Google and the related products indicates an unwillingness or inability to branch out to use different resources to complete the same tasks attempted with Google. As a result, the deficiencies of Google must be accepted as inevitable and incorporated into the public mindset.

Case Studies in Google’s Boundaries

Google’s limitations drastically affected one company by the name of MetaFilter7 ; established in 1999, the site was established as a popular question­and­answer site with a “best of the web” link aggregator and discussion board (like today’s Reddit). In

November of 2012, their site traffic dropped instantaneously and dramatically. They saw a 40% reduction in their daily traffic overnight due to a change (that Google dubbed an

“enhancement”) in Google’s search algorithm. In addition to the loss of site traffic,

MetaFilter also saw a 40% decrease in ad­click revenue. The site never regained its previous level of traffic or ad­click revenue since Google’s “enhancement”.

This case study shows how much power Google search has over other data and information sources. If the browser and search engine markets had a more diverse and equally popular selection of products, then a simple change in an algorithm for one of them would not result in such a dramatic consequence for any one website. However, since Google essentially has a “monopoly” on a population who chooses to provide that power to them, the population in turn suffers from the inadequacies of the product

(many times without even realizing it).

7 http://www.fastcompany.com/3030848/what­google­search­algorithm­changes­do­to­the­internet

Another case study by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) looked into a privacy issue where Google chromebooks were issued to school districts with a fixed

“record­on” privacy setting; without receiving consent from students, parents, teachers, or schools, the chromebooks were automatically (and irrevocably) gathering data on the students. The website makes a point to call out the ethical issue with providing these chromebooks.

“Almost one third of all students… already use

school­issued digital devices, and many of

these devices present a serious risk to student

privacy. They collect far more information on

kids than is necessary, store this information

indefinitely, and sometimes even upload it to

the cloud automatically. In short, they’re spying

on students.”8

The limitation imposed upon society in this example is due to the lack of accountability people hold to Google by virtue of the fact that the company is the most popular data giant; the public assumes that Google will not only treat their information with care, but also assumes that they have no other choice since Google is the “best”.

8 https://www.eff.org/issues/student­privacy/

Preventing Google’s limitations from projecting boundaries

Google, like any form of technology, is bound to have limitations and drawbacks that can be serious in certain instances. How we as a society respond to those limitations dictates how much of an impact they can have on our lives. The main problem is that despite the fact that are many options for quality search engines and applications available in the marketplace, society consistently chooses Google’s products first and rarely frequents other resources; by doing this, the public voluntarily provides Google with a pseudo­monopoly. As a result, Google has more power over the public, over other companies, and over ad seekers attempting to promote their own products. By diversifying our portfolio of resources that we draw information from, we can provide a balance to the marketplace that will push Google to stay competitive while also maintaining their lead in innovation within the field.

Conclusion

Since the early 2000s, Google has maintained a stronghold in the search engine market and developed an impressive portfolio of products meant to aid in user convenience and accessibility. Most of these additions to the marketplace have aided in innovation, education, and the spread of information; however, they have also in a more subtle way impacted our identities as well as forced boundaries on our lives. While we have found new ways to gather data about our surroundings, interests, and fellow people, we have also encountered new challenges and obstacles such as privacy concerns and the consequences of giving one company too much power. Google’s products are designed to serve humanity, and humanity in turn serves Google by providing them more power with each use. It is possible to participate in a healthy, symbiotic relationship with this technology as long as we maintain awareness of Google’s pitfalls, fight for privacy, and continue to draw from multiple resources to gain a holistic view of the information we seek.

Appendix