My thoughts on Google (and every other “platform” which has prospered in an era of Internet’s “original sin”) a Faustian Exchange of Information for Privacy is Ending
My thoughts in bullet point format to help me wrap my arms around this idea.
Google Will Be Forced to Shift Its Purpose and Business
Faust infinite knowledge at a price
Google offers infinite knowledge
Privacy is the price
Marc Andreesen’s “original sin” of Internet (advertising > embedded payments)
Privacy solution through the blockchain’s potential (Blockstack) may derail Google’s current model
There is a big company centralized monopoly negative popular mood
Antitrust comes at same time as decentralized disruption of Blockchain
Current trend is back towards subscriptions and anti-big monopoly tech mood (Stoller’s substack) reflects this
George Gilder compares Google’s near-time fate as like industrial companies getting shuttered
(Gilder calls what is coming, “After Google”, the CryptoCosm) It’s almost the promise of the 1990s underground CYPHERpunks - a network for individuals with privacy protection
Google will not disappear but like all massive network powers (hello AT&T), tech giants (IBM), it won’t be the company that investors bought into in the late 1990s
We’re in a big shift from one model of the Internet -- which exploded in size thanks to the “original sin” of the early commercial Internet -- surrendering our privacy as users in exchange for a massive internet.
We may be moving towards a more private and personalized Internet, changing everything. Let’s go back to the “original sin” of the Internet - “free” public information in exchange for personal information for advertising monetization.
A Bargain about Online Payments and Privacy:
Faust was someone who made a deal with the devil to get infinite knowledge and wealth. And that’s relevant with the Internet, commerce, and the interplay between how advertising works and what’s happened to privacy.
We got a free internet and in return many businesses grew by paying for advertising.
The funniest remnant of this birth was a web page, “the Mllion Dollar Homepage” where people paid a dollar for a tiny sliver of a page of micro sized banners. The original version of the business model of online advertising, via ideaLabs Bill Gross, has dominated the Internet.
(the “Million Dollar Homepage”, online banners woohoo!)
Google would be the ultimate and current winner of online advertising, but also what became of users’ privacy. In a way users became the “product” because their user data became productized, information was given for no upfront cost generally but it was in fact being paid for by our user data, us, our User Generated Content (UGC) being the thing we gave in return.
Google made a fortune based on this model. In return for advertising, we got lots of data (access to so many sites, including the ones you hope you remembered wiping from your browser history).
Marc Andreesen calls the “original sin” of the Internet.
Andreesen told a story about how he and his colleagues, presumably during the early days of the commercial internet, had approached the payment players, like the credit cards and banks, about integrating payments into the browser and software.
His team’s meeting with a so-called thought leader at one of those companies was less than encouraging. The team had asked the expert to touch a blue hyperlink line on the screen and the expert had to be told that he couldn’t simply touch the screen (remember that this was desktop internet in early days) and had to use a “mouse”.
While that seems funny, it reflected an early end to what would have been a different kind of internet - where you paid as you went and never surrendered data about yourself. Your privacy was intact.
Marc Andreesen’s story of the Internet’s "original sin" was that a failure to create a payments solution early on, which killed one vision and the version of an Internet which was more private.
Jason Fried @DHH of Basecamp said:
Google’s doublespeak is impeccable. The key objective for Google is no longer relevant search results, but relevant ads.
RE: Google AdsGoogleAds, Replying to @jasonfried:
To provide users with the most relevant ads, we don’t restrict trademarked terms as keywords. We do restrict trademarked terms in ad text if the trademark owner files a complaint here: https://services.google.com/inquiry/aw_tmcomplaint
The erosion of privacy also fed the rise of the sharing economy, and society shares information and then much more. A counter-trend is an evolution of what was a small movement, the Cypherpunks, which helped create current crypto tech and culture trends.
During the early days of the Internet, the Cypherpunks had formed, recognizing the rise of the Internet’s implications for society and privacy. Their early efforts involved libertarian ideals, code and privacy. David Chaum was a part of that time and trend. He had however, also attempted to reach out to big business with his DigiCash project, to do deals with financial institutions.
The “Faustian Bargain” is how most of the Internet works but it may be shifting.
George Gilder shared outlooks from his book "After Google” in an interview with the heritage foundation - where he talked about the rise of Blockchain technology.
Blockstack is a new startup, which may be one of those new post-Google players. It had developed a decentralized ID solution, and is focused on building tools to help developers build apps/software with decentralization in mind.
Blockstack’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil” - they have deliberately set themselves up to be compared to Google’s old motto about “Doing Good”.
At the same time, however, older financial operators such as Fidelity, Intercontinental Exchange are also building. Their efforts have 2 ingredients in common: of older “pre-crypto” businesses working with governmental authorities and entities.
Would GOOGLE have to “modernize” for George Gilder’s “cryptocosm”?
The Faustian Bargain remains but the terms have changed and includes new players.
George Gilder and "Life after Google"