Arguments against
The new AutoLink feature of Google's toolbar raises serious issues for people who write and publish on the Web. In this article, we discuss this development from the point of view of a writer or publisher, but it's not a legal or scientific discussion. We're not attempting to prove that AutoLink is against the nature of the Web, just to explain why we think it is.
How it works
AutoLink is described in Google's post-install screen as: turning "street addresses into links to online maps." So if I put an address into this page, say 1200 Western Avenue, Seattle, WA, and visit the page in the browser, with the toolbar installed, it says "Look For Map" instead of AutoLink. Click on it and a popup window appears, explaining. (Note: the popup window only appears the first time we click on Look For Map.)
Once I click on the Look For Map button, a new link appears on the page; the link looks exactly like the other links on the page. It appears as if the author of the page added the link. Only a reader who's paying very close attention would know which links were put there by the author, and which were put there by Google. Unlike Smart Tags, which made the Microsoft-generated links appear differently from the authored links, Google makes no such distinction.
However, even if Google used a different style of link, we'd still object. Readers probably wouldn't understand the distinction, and it's virtually certain that in a future version of the software the distinction would be removed. It's wrong to argue this as a static unchanging situation because software evolves to meet user needs, and the financial and political needs of the company that owns the software.
Links are part of language
In 2005, adding links to a page is not different from adding to or changing the words on the page. It's as if a machine editor had license to change our meaning or intent, without our permission, without disclosing to the reader that it was doing so, because it's impossible to know which links were added by the author and which were added by Google.
Any news organization or academic journal that publishes on the Web now has a serious integrity issue because of the existence of the Google toolbar with the AutoLink feature. All documents will have to contain a disclaimer that links contained within the page may not have been placed there by the author or organization whose copyright notice is on the page. Same is true for legal documents, end-user license agreements, rental agreements, etc. And if links are changeable, is text subject to change as well? Might Google correct our spelling? Or might they correct our thinking? Where is the line?
There's no opt-out
Given that high-integrity publications may want to opt-out of this service instead of publishing disclaimers, Google must at least implement an opt-out via robots.txt, and via a web application. It must be possible for a web site operator to declare that their site will not participate in this service, much the same as a site can declare that it does not wish to be part of the Google search engine. That Google failed to provide such an opt-out is indication that they haven't thought this through, it's very counter to their philosophy as we understand it that there is no opt-out.
Microsoft's Smart Tags provided an opt-out in the form of an HTML meta tag.
It should be opt-in only
At minimum it should provide an opt-out as described above, but we really want AutoLink to be opt-in. I might enable it for the home page of my weblog, where content shifts frequently, but not for the archive pages which I can't easily monitor. I might enable it to learn how it works to decide if I want to use it for other pages and other sites, the same way I only include Google ads on certain pages on my site.
It's adware
Even when they link to their map site it's promoting a Google service, which may not, at this time, contain ads, but certainly will at some point in the future. And the map service leads to other Google services that do have ads. So they are using other people's content to make money, money they don't share with the authors or publishers.
When they link from an ISBN to a book page on Amazon, the commercial adware connection is even more obvious.
Where is the line?
This is the question that keeps coming up. Even if you don't find the current implementation invasive, even if it doesn't compromise the integrity of your writing, even if does flow money into Google and their partners, without sharing, where is this going? What's next? Could they link it to Gmail, and where ever the name of a Gmail user appears in a page, change it to a mailto link so you can send them mail? If you're in the widget business, might they change the links to your widgets to links to your competitors' widgets? (Aren't they already doing that to Barnes and Noble?) Would they add discussion software so that any Internet user can mark up your page with their comments, no matter how inane or immature?
It opens the door for Microsoft
If Google goes ahead with this feature, it seems then that Microsoft will argue that if Google can do it, why can't they? Some say that Microsoft is different because they have a monopoly in operating systems and web browsers, but that's a legal argument, and unlikely to persuade Microsoft, nor is the current US administration likely to sue Microsoft to stop them.
Microsoft backed down on Smart Tags in 2001 because so many were united against them. If Google, a very powerful near-monopoly in strategic areas at least as powerful as Microsoft, is going forward and modifying other people's content in order to integrate their ads (i.e. make money) then Microsoft is going to feel free to follow suit. And, as John Robb points out, when Microsoft does this, they might use it to undermine Google's dominant position in search, thereby backfiring on Google. So there might be good business reasons for Google to stand down here.
It's poorly thought-out
When Google introduced the rel="nofollow" attribute, along with other industry leaders, we applauded them for moving quickly and decisively to solve a long-standing industry problem, comment and referrer spam. But in hindsight, we should have gone slower. Shortly after the release of the feature it was discovered that it radically changed the way pointing works on the Web. We learned that it's possible to take steps that have very substantial, possibly very negative, effects on the Web, ones that are difficult to take back.
The AutoLink feature is the first step down a treacherous slope, that could spell the end of the Web as a publishing environment with integrity, and an environment where commerce can take place. Today it's not just about technology, it's not even mostly about technology. More and more of our commerce, government, research, and social life take place on the Web. Google should not commercialize it in such a bold, unilateral manner without discussion, consideration of all the possible problems. the online equivalent of an environmental impact statement.
# Posted by Dave Winer on 2/22/05; 1:50:02 PM - --
