The Society of the Query and the Googlisation

of Our Lives
A Tribute to Joseph Weizenbaum
Geert Lovink

KIT University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg ZAK | Zentrum fr Angewandte Kulturwissenschaft

and National Research Center of the Helmholtz Association und Studium Generale
Centre for Cultural and General Studies
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

Thereisonlyonewaytoturnsignalsintoinformation,throughinterpretation,wrotethe
computercriticJosephWeizenbaum.AsGoogle'shegemonyoveronlinecontentincreases,
arguesGeertLovink,weshouldstopsearchingandstartquestioning.

Aspectrehauntstheworldsintellectualelites:informationoverload.Ordinarypeoplehave
hijackedstrategicresourcesandareclogginguponcecarefullypolicedmediachannels.Be
foretheInternet,themandarinclassesrestedontheideathattheycouldseparateidletalk
fromknowledge.WiththeriseofInternetsearchenginesitisnolongerpossibletodistin
guishbetweenpatricianinsightsandplebeiangossip.Thedistinctionbetweenhighandlow,
andtheircominglingonoccasionsofcarnival,belongtoabygoneeraandshouldnolonger
concernus.Nowadaysanaltogethernewphenomenoniscausingalarm:searchenginesrank
accordingtopopularity,nottruth.Searchisthewaywenowlive.Withthedramaticincrease
ofaccessedinformation,wehavebecomehookedonretrievaltools.Welookfortelephone
numbers,addresses,openingtimes,apersonsname,flightdetails,bestdealsandinafran
ticmooddeclaretheevergrowingpileofgreymatterdatatrash.Soonwewillsearchand
onlygetlost.Oldhierarchiesofcommunicationhavenotonlyimploded,communicationit
selfhasassumedthestatusofcerebralassault.Notonlyhaspopularnoiserisentounbeara
blelevels,wecannolongerstandyetanotherrequestfromcolleaguesandevenabenign
greetingfromfriendsandfamilyhasacquiredthestatusofachorewiththeexpectationof
reply.Theeducatedclassdeploresthefactthatchatterhasenteredthehithertoprotected
domainofscienceandphilosophy,wheninsteadtheyshouldbeworryingaboutwhoisgoing
tocontroltheincreasinglycentralisedcomputinggrid.

What todays administrators of noble simplicity and quiet grandeur cannot express, we
shouldsayforthem:thereisagrowingdiscontentwithGoogleandthewaytheInternetor
ganisesinformationretrieval.Thescientificestablishmenthaslostcontroloveroneofitskey
researchprojectsthedesignandownershipofcomputernetworks,nowusedbybillionsof
people.Howdidsomanypeopleendupbeingthatdependentonasinglesearchengine?
WhyarewerepeatingtheMicrosoftsagaonceagain?Itseemsboringtocomplainabouta
monopolyinthemakingwhenaverageInternetusershavesuchamultitudeoftoolsattheir
disposaltodistributepower.Onepossiblewaytoovercomethispredicamentwouldbeto
positivelyredefineHeideggersGerede.Insteadofacultureofcomplaintthatdreamsofan
1
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

undisturbedofflinelifeandradicalmeasurestofilteroutthenoise,itistimetoopenlycon
frontthetrivialformsofDaseintodayfoundinblogs,textmessagesandcomputergames.
IntellectualsshouldnolongerportrayInternetusersassecondaryamateurs,cutofffroma
primaryandprimordialrelationshipwiththeworld.Thereisagreaterissueatstakeandit
requiresventuringintothepoliticsofinformaticlife.Itistimetoaddresstheemergenceofa
newtypeofcorporationthatisrapidlytranscendingtheInternet:Google.

TheWorldWideWeb,whichshouldhaverealisedtheinfinitelibraryBorgesdescribedinhis
shortstoryTheLibraryofBabel(1941),isseenbymanyofitscriticsasnothingbutavaria
tionofOrwellsBigBrother(1948).Theruler,inthiscase,hasturnedfromanevilmonster
intoacollectionofcoolyoungsterswhosecorporateresponsibilitysloganisDontbeevil.
GuidedbyamucholderandexperiencedgenerationofITgurus(EricSchmidt),Internetpio
neers (Vint Cerf) and economists (Hal Varian), Google has expanded so fast, and in such a
widevarietyoffields,thatthereisvirtuallynocritic,academicorbusinessjournalistwhohas
been able to keep up with the scope and speed with which Google developed in recent
years. New applications and services pile up like unwanted Christmas presents. Just add
GooglesfreeemailserviceGmail,thevideosharingplatformYouTube,thesocialnetwork
ing site Orkut, GoogleMaps and GoogleEarth, its main revenue service AdWords with the
PayPerClick advertisements, office applications such as Calendar, Talks and Docs. Google
not only competes with Microsoft and Yahoo, but also with entertainment firms, public li
braries (through its massive book scanning programme) and even telecom firms the
GooglePhone(theGalaxyNexus)waspresentedin2011.Irecentlyheardalessgeekyfamily
membersayingthatshehadheardthatGooglewasmuchbetterandeasiertousethanthe
Internet.Itsoundedcute,butshewasright.NotonlyhasGooglebecomethebetterInter
net,itistakingoversoftwaretasksfromyourowncomputersothatyoucanaccessthese
data from any terminal or handheld device. Apples MacBook Air is a further indication of
themigrationofdatatoprivatelycontrolledstoragebunkers.Securityandprivacyofinfor
mationarerapidlybecomingtheneweconomyandtechnologyofcontrol.Andthemajority
ofusers,andindeedcompanies,arehappilyabandoningthepowertoselfgoverntheirin
formationalresources.

2
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

TheArtofAskingtheRightQuestion

Myinterestintheconceptsbehindsearchengineswasraisedagainwhilereadingabookof
interviews1withMITprofessorandcomputercriticJosephWeizenbaum,knownforhis1966
automatictherapyprogrammeELIZAandhis1976bookComputerPowerandHumanRea
son. Weizenbaum died on 5 March 2008 at the age of 84. A few years ago Weizenbaum
movedfromBostonbacktoBerlin,thecitywherehegrewupbeforeescapingwithhispar
entsfromtheNazisin1935.EspeciallyinterestingareWeizenbaumsstoriesabouthisyouth
in Berlin, the exile to the USA and the way he became involved in computing during the
1950s.ThebookreadslikeasummaryofWeizenbaumscritiqueofcomputerscience,name
lythatcomputersimposeamechanisticpointofviewontheirusers.Whatespeciallyinter
estedmeisthewayinwhichthehereticWeizenbaumshapeshisargumentsasaninformed
andrespectedinsiderrepresentingapositionsimilartothenetcriticismthatPitSchultz
andIhavebeendevelopingsincewestartedthenettimeprojectin1995.

Thetitleandsubtitleofthebooksoundintriguing:Wherearethey,theislandsofreasonin
thecybersea?Waysoutoftheprogrammedsociety.Weizenbaumssystemofbeliefcanbe
summarisedsomethingas,Notallaspectsofrealityarepredictable.WeizenbaumsInter
netcritiqueisageneralone.Heavoidsbeingspecific,andwehaveto appreciatethis.His
InternetremarksarenothingnewforthosefamiliarwithWeizenbaumsoeuvre:theInternet
isagreatpileofjunk,amassmediumthatconsistsofupto95percentnonsense,muchlike
themediumoftelevision,inwhichdirectiontheWebisinevitablydeveloping.Thesocalled
informationrevolutionhasflippedintoafloodofdisinformation.Thereasonforthisisthe
absenceofaneditororeditorialprinciple.Thebookfailstoaddresswhythiscrucialmedia
principle was not builtin by the first generations of computer programmers, of which
Weizenbaumwasaprominentmember.Theanswerprobablyliesinthecomputersinitial
employment as a calculator. Techno determinists in Berlins Sophienstrae and elsewhere
insistthatmathematicalcalculationremainstheveryessenceofcomputing.The(mis)useof
computersformediapurposeswasnotforeseenbymathematicians,andtodaysclumsyin

1 Weizenbaum, Joseph/Wendt, Gunna: Wo sind sie, die Inseln der Vernunft im Cyberstrom? Auswege aus

der programmierten Gesellschaft, Freiburg 2006.

3
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

terfaces and information management should not be blamed on those who designed the
firstcomputers.Onceawarmachine,itwillbealongandwindingroadtorepurposethedig
ital calculator into a universal human device that serves our endlessly rich and diverse in
formationandcommunicationpurposes.

OnanumberofoccasionsIhaveformulatedacritiqueofmediaecologythatintendstofil
terusefulinformationforindividualconsumption.HubertDreyfussOntheInternet(2001)
isoneofthekeyculprits.Idonotbelievethatitisuptoanyprofessor,editororcodertode
cideforuswhatisandwhatisnotnonsense.Thisshouldbeadistributedeffort,embedded
inaculturethatfacilitatesandrespectsdifferenceofopinion.Weshouldpraisetherichness
andmakenewsearchtechniquespartofourgeneralculture.Onewaytogowouldbetofur
ther revolutionise search tools and increase the general level of medialiteracy. Ifwe walk
intoabookstoreorlibraryourculturehastaughtushowtobrowsethroughthethousands
of titles. Instead of complaining to the librarian or inform the owners that they carry too
manybooks,weaskforassistance,orworkitoutourselves.Weizenbaumwouldlikeusto
distrust what we see on our screens, be it television or the Internet. Weizenbaum fails to
mention who is going to advise us what to trust, whether something is truthful or not, or
howtoprioritisetheinformationweretrieve.Inshort,theroleofthemediatorisjettisoned
infavourofcultivatinggeneralsuspicion.

LetsforgetWeizenbaumsinfoanxiety.Whatmakestheinterviewsuchaninterestingread
isitsinsistenceontheartofaskingtherightquestion.Weizenbaumwarnsagainstanuncrit
ical use of the word information. The signals inside the computer are not information.
They are not more than signals. There is only one way to turn signals into information,
throughinterpretation.Forthiswedependonthelabourofthehumanbrain.Theproblem
oftheInternet,accordingtoWeizenbaum,isthatitinvitesustoseeitasaDelphicoracle.
TheInternetwillprovidetheanswertoallourquestionsandproblems.ButtheInternetis
not a vending machine in which you throw a coin and then get what you want. The key,
here,istheacquisitionofapropereducationinordertoformulatetherightquery.Itsall
abouthowonegetstoposetherightquestion.Forthisoneneedseducationandexpertise.

4
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

Higher standards of education are not attained by making it easier to publish. As Weizen
baumpointsout:Thefactthatanyonecanputanythingonlinedoesnotmeanagreatdeal.
Randomlythrowingsomethinginachievesjustaslittleasrandomlyfishingsomethingout.
Communicationalonewillnotleadtousefulandsustainableknowledge.

Weizenbaum relates the uncontested belief in (search engine) queries to the rise of the
problemdiscourse.Computerswereintroducedasgeneralproblemsolversandtheirpur
posewastoprovideasolutionforeverything.Peoplewereinvitedtodelegatetheirlivesto
the computer. We have a problem, argues Weizenbaum, and the problem requires an
answer.Butpersonalandsocialtensionscannotberesolvedbydeclaringthemaproblem.
WhatweneedinsteadofGoogleandWikipediaisthecapacitytoscrutinizeandthinkcriti
cally.Weizenbaumexplainsthiswithreferencetothedifferencebetweenhearingandlis
tening.Acriticalunderstandingrequiresthatwefirstsitdownandlisten.Thenweneedto
read,notjustdecipher,andlearntointerpretandunderstand.

As you might expect, the socalled Web 3.0 is heralded as the technocratic answer to
Weizenbaums criticism. Instead of Googles algorithms based on keywords and an output
basedonranking,soonwewillbeabletoaskquestionstothenextgenerationofnatural
language search engines such as Powerset. However, we may assume that computational
linguists will be cautious about acting as a content police force that decides what is and
whatisnotcrapontheInternet.ThesamecountsforSemanticWebinitiativesandsimilar
artificial intelligence technologies. We are stuck in the age of web information retrieval.
WhereasGooglesparadigmwasoneoflinkanalysisandpagerank,nextgenerationsearch
engineswillbecomevisualandstartindexingtheworldsimage,thistimenotbasedonthe
tagsthatusershaveaddedbutonthequalityoftheimageryitself.Welcometothehier
archisation of the real. The next volumes of computer user manuals will introduce pro
grammergeekstoaestheticculture.Cameraclubenthusiaststurnedcoderswillbethenew
agentsofbadtaste.

Eversincetheriseofsearchenginesinthe1990swehavebeenlivinginthesocietyofthe
query,which,asWeizenbaumindicates,isnotfarremovedfromthesocietyofthespecta
cle.Writteninthelate1960s,GuyDebordssituationistanalysiswasbasedontheriseof
5
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

thefilm,televisionandadvertisementindustries.Themaindifferencetodayisthatweare
explicitlyrequestedtointeract.Wearenolongeraddressedasananonymousmassofpas
siveconsumersbutinsteadaredistributedactorswhoarepresentonamultitudeofchan
nels.Debordscritiqueofcommodificationisnolongerrevolutionary.Thepleasureofcon
sumerismissowidespreadthatithasreachedthestatusofauniversalhumanright.Weall
lovethecommodityfetish,thebrands,andindulgeintheglamourthattheglobalcelebrity
classperformsonourbehalf.Thereisnosocialmovementorculturalpractice,howeverrad
ical,thatcanescapethecommoditylogic.Nostrategyhasbeendevisedtoliveintheageof
thepostspectacle.Concernshaveinsteadbeenfocusingonprivacy,orwhatsleftofit.The
capacityofcapitalismtoabsorbitsadversariesissuchthat,unlessallprivatetelephonecon
versationsandInternettrafficbecamepubliclyavailable,itwouldbenexttoimpossibleto
arguewhywestillneedcriticisminthiscaseoftheInternet.Eventhen,critiquewouldre
semble shareholder democracy inaction. The sensitive issue of privacy would indeed be
come thecatalyst for a wider consciousness about corporate interests, but its participants
wouldbecarefullysegregated:entrytotheshareholdingmassesisrestrictedtothemiddle
classes and above. This only amplifies the need for a lively and diverse public domain in
whichneitherstatesurveillancenormarketinterestshaveavitalsay.

StopSearching,StartQuestioning

In2005thepresidentoftheFrenchBibliothqueNational,JeanNolJeanneney,publisheda
bookletinwhichhewarnedagainstGooglesclaimtoorganizetheworldsinformation.2
GoogleandtheMythofUniversalKnowledgeremainsoneofthefewdocumentsthatopenly
challenge Googles uncontested hegemony. Jeanneney targets only one specific project,
BookSearch,inwhichmillionsofbooksofAmericanuniversitylibrariesarebeingscanned.
His argument is a very FrenchEuropean one. Because of the unsystematic and unedited
mannerbywhichGoogleselectsthebooks,thearchivewillnotproperlyrepresentthegiants

2 Jeanneney, JeanNoel: Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge. A View from Europe, Chicago 2007.

6
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

of national literature such asHugo, Cervantesand Goethe. Google, with its bias of English
sources,willthereforenotbetheappropriatepartnertobuildapublicarchiveoftheworlds
culturalheritage.ThechoiceofthebookstobedigitisedwillbeimpregnatedbytheAnglo
Saxonatmosphere,writesJeanneney.

Whileinitselfalegitimateargument,theproblemisthatGoogleisnotinterestedincreating
andadministeringanonlinearchiveinthefirstplace.Googlesuffersfromdataobesityandis
indifferenttocallsforcarefulpreservation.Itwouldbenaivetodemandculturalawareness.
The prime objective of this cynical enterprise is to monitor user behaviour in order to sell
trafficdataandprofilestointerestedthirdparties.GoogleisnotaftertheownershipofEmi
le Zola; its intention is to lure the Proust lover away from the archive. Whereas for the
French,BalzacscollectedworksaretheepiphanyofFrenchlanguageandculture,forGoogle
theyareabstractdatajunk,arawresourcewhosesolepurposeistomakeprofit.Itremains
anopenquestioniftheproposedEuropeananswertoGoogle,themultimediasearchen
gine Quaero, will ever become operational, let alone embody Jeanneneys values. By the
timeofQuaeroslaunch,thesearchenginemarketwillbeagenerationaheadofQuaeroin
mediaanddevicecapabilities;somearguethatJacquesChiracwasmoreinterestedinmain
tainingFrenchpridethantheglobaladvancementoftheInternet.3

ItisnogreatsurprisethatGooglesfiercestcriticsareNorthAmericans.Sofar,Europehas
investedsurprisinglylittleofitsresourcesintotheconceptualunderstandingandmappingof
newmediaculture.Atbest,theEUisthefirstadaptoroftechnicalstandardsandproducts
fromelsewhere.Butwhatcountsinnewmediaresearchisconceptualsupremacy.Technol
ogyresearchalonewillnotdothejob,nomatterhowmuchmoneytheEUinvestsinfuture
Internetresearch.Aslongasthegapbetweennewmediacultureandmajorgoverning,pri
vateandculturalinstitutionsisreproduced,athrivingtechnologicalculturewillnotbeestab
lished.Inshort,weshouldstopseeingoperaandtheotherbeauxartesascompensationfor
theunbearablelightnessofcyberspace.Besidesimagination,collectivewillandagooddose
of creativity, Europeans could mobilise their unique quality to grumble into a productive

3 See the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero. In December 2006 Germany pulled out

of the Quaero project. Instead of a multimedia search engine German engineers favoured a textbased
one. According to Wikipedia many German engineers also balked at what they thought was becoming
too much of an antiGoogle project, rather than a project driven by its own ideals.

7
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

formofnegativity.Thecollectivepassionforreflectionandcritiquecouldbeusedtoover
cometheoutsidersyndromemanyfeelintheirassignedroleasmereusersandconsumers.
JaronLanierwroteinhisWeizenbaumobituary:
Wewouldntletastudentbecomeaprofessionalmedicalresearcherwithoutlearningabout
double blind experiments, control groups, placebos and the replication of results. Why is
computersciencegivenauniquepassthatallowsustobesoftonourselves?Everycomputer
sciencestudentshouldbetrainedinWeizenbaumianscepticism,andshouldtrytopassthat
preciousdisciplinealongtotheusersofourinventions".4

Wehavetoaskourselves:whyarethebestandmostradicalInternetcriticsUSAmericans?
Wecannolongerusetheargumentthattheyarebetterinformed.Mytwoexamples,work
inginWeizenbaumsfootsteps,areNicolasCarrandSivaVaidhyanathan.Carrcomesfrom
theindustry(HarvardBusinessReview)andistheperfectinsidercritic.Hisrecentbook,The
Big Switch,5 describes Googles strategy to centralise, and thus control, the Internet infra
structurethroughitsdatacentre.Computersarebecomingsmaller,cheaperandfaster.This
economyofscalemakesitpossibletooutsourcestorageandapplicationsatlittleornocost.
BusinessesareswitchingfrominhouseITdepartmentstonetworkservices.Thereisaniron
ic twist here. Generations of hip IT gurus cracked jokes about the IBM head Thomas Wat
sonspredictionthattheworldonlyneededfivecomputersyetthisisexactlythetrend.
Instead of further decentralising, Internet use is concentrated in a few, extremely energy
demandingdatacentres.6

CarrignoresthegreedofthedotcomturnedWeb2.0classandinsteadspecialisesinamoral
observations of technology. Siva Vaidhyanathans project, The Googlization of Everything,
aimedtosynthesiszecriticalGoogleresearchintoabook.Beforethebookwaspublishedin
2011,7Vaidhyanathancollectedtherawmaterialononeofhisblogs.8

4 Lanier, Jaron, in: Edge; http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/carr08/carr08_index.html [06.02.2012].
5 Carr, Nicolas: The Big Switch. Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google, New York 2008.
6 The blueprints depicting Googles data center at The Dalles, Oregon are proof that the Web is no ethere

al store of ideas, shimmering over our heads like the aurora borealis. It is a new heavy industry, an ener
gy glutton that is only growing hungrier.; Strand, Ginger: Keyword: Evil, in: Harpers Magazine, March
2008, pp. 6465.
7 Vaidhyanathan, Siva: The Googlization of Everything (And Why We Should Worry), Berkeley/Los Angeles

2011.
8 Vaidhyanathan, Siva: The Googlization of Everything. How One Company Is Disrupting Commerce, Cul

ture, and Community; http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/ [06.02.2012].

8
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

Forthetimebeingwewillremainobsessedwiththediminishingqualityoftheanswersto
ourqueriesandnotwiththeunderlyingproblem,namelythepoorqualityofoureducation
andthediminishingabilitytothinkinacriticalway.Iamcuriouswhetherfuturegenerations
willembodyorshallwesaydesignWeizenbaumsislandsofreason.Whatisnecessary
isareappropriationoftime.Atthemomentthereissimplynotenoughofittostrollaround
likeaflaneur.Allinformation,anyobjectorexperiencehastobeinstantaneouslyathand.
Ourtechnoculturaldefaultisoneoftemporalintolerance.Ourmachinesregistersoftware
redundancywithincreasingimpatience,demandingthatweinstalltheupdate.Andweare
all too willing to oblige, mobilised by the fear of slower performance. Usability experts
measure the fractions of a second in which we decide whether the information on the
screeniswhatwearelookingfor.Ifweredissatisfied,weclickfurther.Serendipityrequires
alotoftime.Wemightpraiserandomness,buthardlypracticethisvirtueourselves.Ifwe
can no longer stumble into islands of reason through our inquiries, we may as well build
themourselves.WithLevManovichandothercolleaguesIarguethatweneedtoinventnew
waystointeractwithinformation,newwaystorepresentit,andnewwaystomakesenseof
it.Howareartists,designers,andarchitectsrespondingtothesechallenges?Stopsearching.
Startquestioning.Ratherthantryingtodefendourselvesagainstinformationglut,wecan
approach this situation creatively as the opportunity to invent new forms appropriate for
ourinformationrichworld.

ThankstoNedRossiterforhiseditorialassistanceandideas.

9
TheSocietyoftheQueryandtheGooglisationofOurLivesGeertLovink

References
Carr,Nicolas:TheBigSwitch.RewiringtheWorld,FromEdisontoGoogle,NewYork2008
Jeanneney,JeanNoel:GoogleandtheMythofUniversalKnowledge.AViewfromEurope,
Chicago2007
Lanier,Jaron,in:Edge;http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/carr08/carr08_index.html
[06.02.2012]
Strand,Ginger:Keyword:Evil,in:HarpersMagazine,March2008,pp.6465
Vaidhyanathan,Siva:TheGooglizationofEverything(AndWhyWeShouldWorry),Berke
ley/LosAngeles2011
Vaidhyanathan,Siva:TheGooglizationofEverything.HowOneCompanyIsDisruptingCom
merce,Culture,andCommunity;http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/
[06.02.2012]
Weizenbaum,Joseph/Wendt,Gunna:Wosindsie,dieInselnderVernunftimCyberstrom?
AuswegeausderprogrammiertenGesellschaft,Freiburg2006

10
15th KARLSRUHE DIALOGUES
11th13th February 2011
15th Karlsruhe Dialogues
Caught in the Net? Global Google-Cultures
11th-13th February 2011

Presented by:
ZAK | Centre for Cultural and General Studies
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

Convenorship: Prof. Dr Caroline Y. Robertson-von Trotha

Organisation: Swenja Zaremba M.A.

Editorial Team:
Silke Flrchinger M.A.
Janina Hecht M.A.
Sonja Seidel

www.zak.kit.edu