DOCSLIB.ORG

A Rhetorical Criticism of Google's European Identification Strategies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Rhetorical Criticism of Google's European Identification Strategies A Rhetorical Criticism of Google’s European Identification Strategies Kristoffer Nordman Field of study: Rhetoric Level: One Year Master Credits: 30 credits Thesis Defence: Spring 2014 Supervisor: Mika Hietanen Department of Literature Master’s Thesis in Rhetoric Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Overall topic and motives .................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Rhetorics and Humanities and the linkages to Law, Politics and Technology ......... 5 1.2.2 Google speaking at the European Commission Innovation Convention................... 8 1.2.3 Background, The European Union and ideology conflicts in Innovation Policy ...... 8 1.3 Previous research................................................................................................................ 12 1.3.1 Rhetorical Criticism and its application to corporate communication ................... 12 1.3.2 Research on Google .................................................................................................... 16 1.3.3 Adjacent fields of interest ........................................................................................... 17 1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 19 1.4.1 General topic of inquiry ............................................................................................. 19 1.4.2 Specific research questions......................................................................................... 19 1.5 Material ............................................................................................................................... 22 1.6 Research method and theoretical framework .................................................................. 23 1.6.1 Burkean identification theory .................................................................................... 24 1.6.2 The Burkean concept of consubstantiality ................................................................ 27 1.6.3 Terministic screens ..................................................................................................... 28 1.6.4 Burkean theory of dramatism .................................................................................... 30 1.6.5 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 32 1.7 Implementation ................................................................................................................... 35 2 An analysis of verbal strategies to get the audience to identify with Google’s message ....... 36 2.1 Google's Agent identity ...................................................................................................... 36 2.1.1. Commencement of the Agent construct .................................................................... 36 2.1.2. Innovator in “smart problems” ................................................................................. 38 2.1.3. Innovator that improves society ................................................................................ 40 2.1.4 Google as data collector .............................................................................................. 44 2.1.5 Google as promoter of education ............................................................................... 46 2.1.6. Google as an investor in Europe ................................................................................ 46 2.1.7. Audience question to facilitate the Agent identity construction .............................. 48 2.1.8 Summary of Agent identity elements ........................................................................ 50 2.2 Agent-Scene ratios - European Innovation as Scene ........................................................ 51 2.2.1 Engaging the Scene as Agent ..................................................................................... 52 2.2.2 History of science and technology .............................................................................. 53 2.2.3 Current European examples of Innovation and scientific breakthrough ............... 56 2.2.4 European integration.................................................................................................. 57 1 2.2.5 Political leadership ..................................................................................................... 58 2.2.6 Psychological mind-set ............................................................................................... 61 2.2.7 The competition between U.S., Asia and Europe ..................................................... 61 2.2.8 Scene-Agent ratios, summary .................................................................................... 63 2.3 Agent and Scene based identification strategies in light of Google’s advice to the EU.. 64 3 Results and discussion ............................................................................................................... 72 3.1 Results of the analysis......................................................................................................... 72 3.2 Discussion of Google’s strategies for audience identification .......................................... 74 3.3 Conclusion and outlook ...................................................................................................... 79 References .......................................................................................................................................... 80 Annex 1. Transcript of speech by Erich Schmidt, European Innovation Convention 2011 ........ 88 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Overall topic and motives The political processes surrounding Innovation Policy is an especially fascinating arena for the study of corporate political influence, since the evolution of our societies and civilisations are historically in tandem with the pace of technological progress, which in turn relies on societies’ institutions for its fruition and spread, on politics and law in particular. The commercial stakes are high and a lot of investments in time, money, intellectual endeavours, even hopes and dreams, can either be lost or rewarded, sometimes entirely depending on the actions of the legislator. No surprise then that in our time the political process is so influenced by special interest groups like the large global corporations. My specific interest is to examine how decision makers in that context might identify themselves and their political goals with a certain company’s interests and consequently listen to its suggestions on policy formulation, or at least take the needs of such companies into considerations in the legislative process. I seek to do so by analysing the verbal strategies of a powerful global company as it interacts with European policy makers in the setting of a conference speech. The particular company examined is Google. The particular artefact is a conference speech held in 2011 by its Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt to a gathering of influential European professionals and policy makers. The legislative processes to be influenced are those of the European Union and its member states. The particular field of politics concerned can broadly be described as Innovation Policy, the complicated “ecosystem” of culture, science, financing, laws and regulations that determine the possibilities for economic growth through adopting new ways of doing things in society. Through rhetorical criticism I wish to better understand Google’s communication in this area, and to gain further insights into the communication strategies used to influence the processes of such complex fields of politics. Google as a company is interesting since it is a large, economically powerful company with global reach. It is also a prominent example of the knowledge based industries of the IT sector, with fast growth capacity and a substantial impact on our lives and on society. Google also firmly carries its identity of being an “innovation engine” and has constructed its corporate culture extensively around harnessing and channelling creativity and innovation. As Google has become bigger and wealthier as a company and has gained more influence due to the widespread use of its products and services, it has also become more controversial as its 3 existence starts to affect society. Eric Schmidt joined Google in 2001, and has since moved from the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to Executive Chairman with the explicit mandate to “advis[e] the CEO and senior leadership on business and policy issues” as well as being responsible for “government outreach” and “technology thought leadership”.1 The choice of my topic emanates from the confluence of my interests in politics, law, business and communication. Having worked for the better part of a decade as a commercial lawyer in the fields of Intellectual Property-, Media- and Marketing Law, I have gotten to see the aspirations and struggles of companies and individual entrepreneurs and inventors in their endeavours to navigate the inescapable uncertainty produced by old legislation being applied to new technologies, solutions and circumstances. As a citizen, I recognize the challenge technology poses to our rights and liberties if not adequately regulated. As a consumer, I enjoy the options and possibilities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hacking the Master Switch? the Role of Infrastructure in Google's
    Hacking the Master Switch? The Role of Infrastructure in Google’s Network Neutrality Strategy in the 2000s by John Harris Stevenson A thesis submitteD in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information University of Toronto © Copyright by John Harris Stevenson 2017 Hacking the Master Switch? The Role of Infrastructure in Google’s Network Neutrality Strategy in the 2000s John Harris Stevenson Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information University of Toronto 2017 Abstract During most of the decade of the 2000s, global Internet company Google Inc. was one of the most prominent public champions of the notion of network neutrality, the network design principle conceived by Tim Wu that all Internet traffic should be treated equally by network operators. However, in 2010, following a series of joint policy statements on network neutrality with telecommunications giant Verizon, Google fell nearly silent on the issue, despite Wu arguing that a neutral Internet was vital to Google’s survival. During this period, Google engaged in a massive expansion of its services and technical infrastructure. My research examines the influence of Google’s systems and service offerings on the company’s approach to network neutrality policy making. Drawing on documentary evidence and network analysis data, I identify Google’s global proprietary networks and server locations worldwide, including over 1500 Google edge caching servers located at Internet service providers. ii I argue that the affordances provided by its systems allowed Google to mitigate potential retail and transit ISP gatekeeping. Drawing on the work of Latour and Callon in Actor– network theory, I posit the existence of at least one actor-network formed among Google and ISPs, centred on an interest in the utility of Google’s edge caching servers and the success of the Android operating system.
    [Show full text]
  • Biographies of Computer Scientists
    1 Charles Babbage 26 December 1791 (London, UK) – 18 October 1871 (London, UK) Life and Times Charles Babbage was born into a wealthy family, and started his mathematics education very early. By . 1811, when he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, he found that he knew more mathematics then his professors. He moved to Peterhouse, Cambridge from where he graduated in 1814. However, rather than come second to his friend Herschel in the final examinations, Babbage decided not to compete for an honors degree. In 1815 he co-founded the Analytical Society dedicated to studying continental reforms of Newton's formulation of “The Calculus”. He was one of the founders of the Astronomical Society in 1820. In 1821 Babbage started work on his Difference Engine designed to accurately compile tables. Babbage received government funding to construct an actual machine, but they stopped the funding in 1832 when it became clear that its construction was running well over-budget George Schuetz completed a machine based on the design of the Difference Engine in 1854. On completing the design of the Difference Engine, Babbage started work on the Analytical Engine capable of more general symbolic manipulations. The design of the Analytical Engine was complete in 1856, but a complete machine would not be constructed for over a century. Babbage's interests were wide. It is claimed that he invented cow-catchers for railway engines, the uniform postal rate, a means of recognizing lighthouses. He was also interested in locks and ciphers. He was politically active and wrote many treatises. One of the more famous proposed the banning of street musicians.
    [Show full text]
  • From Notice-And-Takedown to Notice-And-Delist: Implementing Google Spain
    FINAL KUCZERAWY AND AUSLOOS 4.5.16 (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/16 11:51 AM FROM NOTICE-AND-TAKEDOWN TO NOTICE-AND-DELIST: IMPLEMENTING GOOGLE SPAIN ALEKSANDRA KUCZERAWY AND JEF AUSLOOS* INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 220 A. Media Storm ........................................................................... 220 B. Internet Law Crossroads ........................................................ 221 I. HOW DID WE GET HERE? .............................................................. 223 A. Google Spain .......................................................................... 223 1. Facts of the Case ............................................................... 223 2. Scope ............................................................................... 224 3. Right to be Delisted .......................................................... 224 4. Balancing .......................................................................... 225 B. Implementation of Google Spain ............................................ 226 1. Online Form ...................................................................... 226 2. Advisory Council .............................................................. 227 3. Article 29 Working Party ................................................. 228 4. Emerging Body of Case Law ........................................... 228 II. HAVE WE MET BEFORE? ............................................................... 229 A. Dazed and Confused: Criticism of Google
    [Show full text]
  • Convention Program
    AAEESS 112244tthh CCOONNVVEENNTTIIOONN PPRROOGGRRAAMM May 17 – 20, 2008 RAI International Exhibition & Congress Centre, Amsterdam The AES has launched a new opportunity to recognize 1University of Salford, Salford, Greater student members who author technical papers. The Stu- Manchester, UK dent Paper Award Competition is based on the preprint 2ICW, Ltd., Wrexham, Wales, UK manuscripts accepted for the AES convention. Forty-two student-authored papers were nominated. This paper gives an account of work carried out The excellent quality of the submissions has made the to assess the effects of metallized film selection process both challenging and exhilarating. polypropylene crossover capacitors on key sonic The award-winning student paper will be honored dur- attributes of reproduced sound. The capacitors ing the convention, and the student-authored manuscript under investigation were found to be mechani- will be published in a timely manner in the Journal of the cally resonant within the audio frequency band, Audio Engineering Society. and results obtained from subjective listening Nominees for the Student Paper Award were required tests have shown this to have a measurable to meet the following qualifications: effect on audio delivery. The listening test methodology employed in this study evolved (a) The paper was accepted for presentation at the from initial ABX type tests with set program AES 124th Convention. material to the final A/B tests where trained test (b) The first author was a student when the work was subjects used program material that they were conducted and the manuscript prepared. familiar with. The main findings were that (c) The student author’s affiliation listed in the manu- capacitors used in crossover circuitry can exhibit script is an accredited educational institution.
    [Show full text]
  • When in Rome, Beijing Or Brussels
    When in Rome, Beijing or Brussels: Cultural Considerations of International Business Communication By Colin Gunn-Graffy A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Department of Communication Boston College May, 2007 Copyright, Colin Gunn-Graffy © 2007 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements To my family, for their continued support, no matter what continent I’m on TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO: Things Go Worse for Coke: The Coca-Cola 12 Contamination Crisis in Belgium CHAPTER THREE: The Magic’s Gone: The Marketing Mistake 31 of Euro Disney in France CHAPTER FOUR: Looking Ahead: The Digital Age 55 and the Rising Markets of the East CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusion 69 REFERENCES 74 1 CHAPTER ONE: Introduction Globalization and the Rise of Multinational Corporations Even before the Dutch sailed to the East Indies or Marco Polo traveled to China, people have been interacting with other cultures in numerous ways, many of them for economic reasons. One would imagine it was quite difficult initially for these people to communicate and do business with each other, but even today obstacles in international business still exist. Although our world has certainly become much smaller in the last several centuries, cultural and geographical contexts still play a large part in shaping different societies and their methods of interaction with others. The term “globalization” is one heard of quite often in today’s world, particularly in economic terms, referring to the expansion of free market capitalism. There are many other aspects that fit into the globalization process, ranging from political to social to technological, that are a part of this increasing interconnectivity of people around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Mashing-Up Maps Google Geo Services and the Geography Of
    Mashing-up Maps Google Geo Services and the Geography of Ubiquity Craig M. Dalton A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy in the Department of Geography. Chapel Hill 2012 Approved by: Dr. Scott Kirsch Dr. Banu Gokariksel Dr. Kenneth Hillis Dr. John Pickles Dr. Sarah Sharma © 2012 Craig M. Dalton ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Abstract CRAIG DALTON: Mashing-up Maps: Google Geo Services and the Geography of Ubiquity (Under the direction of Scott Kirsch) How are Google geo services such as Google Maps and Google Earth shaping ways of seeing the world? These geographic ways of seeing are part of an influential and problematic geographic discourse. This discourse reaches hundreds of millions of people, though not all have equal standing. It empowers many people to make maps on the geoweb, but within the limits of Google’s business strategy. These qualities, set against the state-centeredness of mapmaking over the last six hundred years, mark the Google geo discourse as something noteworthy, a consumer-centered mapping in a popular geographic discourse. This dissertation examines the Google geo discourse through its social and technological history, Google’s role in producing and limiting the discourse, and the subjects who make and use these maps. iii Acknowledgements This dissertation was only possible with the help of a large number of people. I owe each a debt of gratitude. Chief among them is a fantastic advisor, Scott Kirsch. His patience, grace, and good criticism saw me through the trials of graduate school.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. MPEG Layer-3 Audio Encoding
    MPEG Layer-3 An introduction to MPEG Layer-3 K. Brandenburg and H. Popp Fraunhofer Institut für Integrierte Schaltungen (IIS) MPEG Layer-3, otherwise known as MP3, has generated a phenomenal interest among Internet users, or at least among those who want to download highly-compressed digital audio files at near-CD quality. This article provides an introduction to the work of the MPEG group which was, and still is, responsible for bringing this open (i.e. non-proprietary) compression standard to the forefront of Internet audio downloads. 1. Introduction The audio coding scheme MPEG Layer-3 will soon celebrate its 10th birthday, having been standardized in 1991. In its first years, the scheme was mainly used within DSP- based codecs for studio applications, allowing professionals to use ISDN phone lines as cost-effective music links with high sound quality. In 1995, MPEG Layer-3 was selected as the audio format for the digital satellite broadcasting system developed by World- Space. This was its first step into the mass market. Its second step soon followed, due to the use of the Internet for the electronic distribution of music. Here, the proliferation of audio material – coded with MPEG Layer-3 (aka MP3) – has shown an exponential growth since 1995. By early 1999, “.mp3” had become the most popular search term on the Web (according to http://www.searchterms.com). In 1998, the “MPMAN” (by Saehan Information Systems, South Korea) was the first portable MP3 player, pioneering the road for numerous other manufacturers of consumer electronics. “MP3” has been featured in many articles, mostly on the business pages of newspapers and periodicals, due to its enormous impact on the recording industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Limited Consumer Privacy Protections Against the Layers of Big Data Andrew W
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 31 Article 4 Issue 3 01/01/2015 January 2015 Limited Consumer Privacy Protections Against the Layers of Big Data Andrew W. Bagley Justin S. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew W. Bagley and Justin S. Brown, Limited Consumer Privacy Protections Against the Layers of Big Data, 31 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 483 (2015). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol31/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. V31_BAGLEY & BROWN_FINAL CORRECTIONS (DO NOT DELETE) 6/12/2015 8:25 PM LIMITED CONSUMER PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE LAYERS OF BIG DATA Andrew W. Bagley† & Justin S. Brown†† Consumers give away their data voluntarily and involuntary through their everyday online interactions. Many of these interactions are governed by “click-wrap” agreements in which consumers agree to data use terms with their Internet service provider (ISP), content provider, or an entire computing ecosystem through various layers of the Internet. This phenomenon effectively means that consumers lose control of their data to an endless web of third party big-data brokers unaccountable to the user. All the while, the increasingly dynamic and valuable nature of datasets makes it difficult to predict how data collected today will be used in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Carroll V. Google
    Case 3:20-cv-07379 Document 1 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 70 1 Elizabeth C. Pritzker (CA SBN: 146267) Jonathan K. Levine (CA SBN: 220289) 2 Bethany Caracuzzo (CA SBN: 190687) Caroline C. Corbitt (CA SBN: 305492) 3 PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 4 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 5 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 6 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 7 [email protected]; [email protected] 8 Heidi M. Silton (pro hac vice forthcoming) Justin R. Erickson (pro hac vice forthcoming) 9 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 10 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 11 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 12 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 13 14 Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 DANIEL CARROLL, DANIEL ) Case No. 18 EGERTER, and BRENDA KEEGAN, and ) ) 19 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) CLASS ACTION ) COMPLAINT 20 ) Plaintiffs, 21 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) 22 v. ) 23 GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND ) ) LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE 24 LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC ) ) 25 PTE. LIMITED; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., ) 26 ) Defendants. ) 27 ) 28 -1- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No.: Case 3:20-cv-07379 Document 1 Filed 10/21/20 Page 2 of 70 1 Plaintiffs Daniel Carroll, Daniel Egerter and Brenda Keegan, on behalf of themselves and all 2 others similarly situated, bring this class action against Defendants Google LLC; Google Ireland Ltd.; 3 Google Commerce Ltd.; Google Asia Pacific Pte.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Prevails in Fair Use Case on Book Digitization Project
    CHICAGOLAWBULLETIN.COM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2013 ® Volume 159, No. 241 Google prevails in fair use case on book digitization project o o g l e ’s unofficial slo- braries would be a logistic im- reader, as well. The author gets gan “D o n’t be evil” p o s s i b i l i t y. her royalty on the sales. And sets a pretty low bar So Google addressed the prob- INSIDE IP LAW Google has taken a small step to- as a standard of cor- lem in a bold and controversial ward its mission of making in- porate conduct. way. Rather than seeking permis- formation universally accessible GMaybe that’s why the company is sion from publishers and authors and useful. so often the subject of criticism. to scan copyrighted books, Google C h i n ’s decision is an excellent The Google-haters are numer- scanned all the books and an- WILLIAM T. example of a ruling that achieves ous and the complaints are stri- nounced that if any copyright the ultimate goal of copyright law dent: Google invades our privacy, owner did not want its book in- MCGR AT H —to promote the dissemination it reads our e-mail, it allows cen- cluded in the project, Google of knowledge and the advance- sorship in China, it is unfair in its would gladly remove it. In other William T. McGrath is a member of Davis, ment of learning, while also pro- page rankings and it has inun- words, authors and publishers McGrath LLC, where he handles copyright, viding an economic benefit to the dated us with advertisements.
    [Show full text]
  • Eric Schmidt at the Personal Democracy Forum
    Google, Inc. Personal Democracy Forum Tom: Thank you for having us here. It’s a treat to be here. I’m Tom Friedman from The New York Times and The Flat World and my partner in crime here, Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google. And Eric, thank you for being here. I just wanted to begin with a broad question. As a newspaper reader, it seems like Google’s in the news every day, and it’s something new. I just have a really simple question. Where are you guys going? What is the new, new thing for Google? And what is kind of the macro frame around it? Because I know these _____ stories I’m reading, they all are connected to a broader strategy. Eric: Maybe. Tom: I hope. Eric: You’re giving us a lot of credit. Well, thank you all for having us here. It’s a pretty important event, and I’m so glad people could spend the time. And thanks to the university for sponsoring it and so forth. The news this week of course is that we’re integrating the way search works. We’ve taken the disparate sources of information, video, news, and so forth, and put them together in a common set of answers, which we call universal search. What was happening of course was people were spending all their time in these specialty searches, but they really wanted to ask the right question and get all the right answers. And our signals, our algorithms as we call them, are getting better as we’re getting more information, we understand personal behavior and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • “Over-The-Top” Television: Circuits of Media Distribution Since the Internet
    BEYOND “OVER-THE-TOP” TELEVISION: CIRCUITS OF MEDIA DISTRIBUTION SINCE THE INTERNET Ian Murphy A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Communication. Chapel Hill 2018 Approved by: Richard Cante Michael Palm Victoria Ekstrand Jennifer Holt Daniel Kreiss Alice Marwick Neal Thomas © 2018 Ian Murphy ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ian Murphy: Beyond “Over-the-Top” Television: Circuits of Media Distribution Since the Internet (Under the direction of Richard Cante and Michael Palm) My dissertation analyzes the evolution of contemporary, cross-platform and international circuits of media distribution. A circuit of media distribution refers to both the circulation of media content as well as the underlying ecosystem that facilitates that circulation. In particular, I focus on the development of services for streaming television over the internet. I examine the circulation paths that either opened up or were foreclosed by companies that have been pivotal in shaping streaming economies: Aereo, Netflix, Twitter, Google, and Amazon. I identify the power brokers of contemporary media distribution, ranging from sectors of legacy television— for instance, broadcast networks, cable companies, and production studios—to a variety of new media and technology industries, including social media, e-commerce, internet search, and artificial intelligence. In addition, I analyze the ways in which these power brokers are reconfiguring content access. I highlight a series of technological, financial, geographic, and regulatory factors that authorize or facilitate access, in order to better understand how contemporary circuits of media distribution are constituted.
    [Show full text]