Google's brilliant salesmen

Google became a verb some time ago, through its suite of services it’s now graduated to being an ent

Having just celebrated their tenth anniversary, the boys at the big G have been so busy doing no evil of late, it’s becoming difficult to keep track.

In the last week or so, Google has launched a new web browser, version 3 of its image management software (with face recognition), sent a satellite into orbit (part financed by the DoD) to take pictures for use in Google Maps, filled in some of that pesky missing data on the map of Georgia and provided some tech-infrastructure for the Republican National Convention.

In all of this activity one of the initiatives that has been less reported is the announcement that they are stepping up the newspaper digitisation programme, which started back in 2006. The main development is the addition of full facsimile images of print pages, searchable and reproduced on screen using a very elegant browser-based reader. This gives an enriched account of the reported news of the time, contextualised by the advertising and print design of the day… At least, that’s if you can find something. There’s a very limited set of records available so far, although what there is proves compelling. The experience of seeing the microfiche translated to the browser is hugely seductive, and one could be tempted to sit back and breathe a sigh of relief that this is another element of your intellectual and professional life that you’ll soon be able to outsource to those well-meaning boys on the West Coast.

With an antitrust suit brewing around the proposed Yahoo! Deal (which could result in Google controlling (80 per cent of the online advertising market) it’s easy to be distracted from the monopolies which Google are already creating. Major universities are outsourcing their email to gMail, Google Apps is providing free groupware software for major organisations, tools such as the News archive are revolutionising the way in which research can be carried out and they are sole custodians of personal data the likes of which governments and credit agencies only dream of holding. But whilst the chirpy altruism of Page and Brin has propelled the company from student project through ten years of startling growth, the ‘no evil’ mantra surely can’t sustain it for a great deal longer. Even disregarding the concerns of the fiscal monopoly, we are becoming intellectually and professionally dependent on this extraordinary company. Google became a verb some time ago, through its suite of services it’s now graduated to being an entire workplace.

Google are software pioneers changing the landscape of the way we work and learn, but we shouldn’t forget what their business model and only major revenue stream is. They are brilliant ad-salesman.

Happy birthday Google!

Iain Simons writes, talks and tweets about videogames and technology. His new book, Play Britannia, is to be published in 2009. He is the director of the GameCity festival at Nottingham Trent University.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On the important issues, Louise Casey all too often has little to say

Far from moving the debate on, this new report on integration adds little to the report I commissioned in 2001. 

For 15 years, “numerous government reports on community cohesion and integration have not been implemented with enough force or consistency” concludes Louise Casey’s review of  integration.  The government’s lukewarm response suggests their effort will be as “diluted and muddled” as all the rest.

There’s a deeper reason why governments shy away from the measures that are needed. The report's wealth of data sets out a stark if sometimes contestable picture of a divided society.  But no amount of data can really bring the lives of our fellow citizens to life. As the Brexit vote underlined, this is now a nation divided by class, geography, education, wealth, opportunity and race. Those divisions colour the way we live our lives, the way we see problems in society, the relations we have with others, and our political choices. The report, like many before it, stops short of setting out that reality. It’s easier to pretend that most of us pretty much agree on most things; but just few people don’t agree and they must be the problem. Predictably, much of the early coverage has focussed on the Muslim community and new migrants. If only it were so easy.

According to Casey “in this country, we take poverty, social exclusion, social justice and social mobility seriously” and we do it “across political divides”. Apparently “creating a fair, just society where everyone can prosper and get on” is a cornerstone of British values. Yet for page after page the report chronicles the serial failure of this benign consensus to tackle educational under-performance, and economic and racial disadvantage. If we all agree, how come we haven't done anything about it?

These problems are not certainly easy to solve, but more lip service is paid to tackling them than effort. The practical material issues documented here need addressing, but punches are pulled when hard answers are needed. Given the dramatic impact of mass migration on cohesion, is integration possible while current rates of immigration persist? Can we find the political will to tackle poverty and disadvantage when those who might benefit from the effort are divided against each other by suspicion, race, geography and values? After all, rather than progressive policies producing a cohesive society, social unity is the precondition for the introduction of progressive policies.

We don't actually actually agree on what our “fundamental values” mean in practice. We can all sign up to democracy and the rule of law, but as soon as those are put into practice – see the court case on Article 50 – we are divided. When judges are popularly seen as “enemies of the people” and a vote in an elected parliament as a threat to democracy, in what sense are law and democracy fundamental?

Casey usefully highlights how treating homeless families equally, irrespective of ethnicity and length of residence can create the perception that minorities are being favoured over long standing residents. Our differing views on what is “just” and how “fairness” are defined can tear us apart. Is it fair to favour the newcomer over the indigenous? Is it just to put length of time on the waiting list above housing need? We often don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of other points of view, let alone try to find common ground.

The continual invocation of Britain and British values lends an air of unreality to the report.  Most people in England include British in their identity, but Englishness and English interests are of growing importance. In a worrying development, some areas of England  may be polarising between a white Englishness and an ethnic minority Britishness. Integration won't happen without a shared national story that combines a unifying national identity with the acceptance that we all have more than one identity that matters to us. Ignoring the reality of complex and multiple identities closes off one essential way forward.

None of this means that the criticism of some reactionary and occasionally dangerous ideas and practices in the Muslim community should be ignored and not confronted. But in a country where the established church opposes homosexual relationships and praise for Vladimir Putin's Russia is now mainstream politics it is hard to believe that all our problems can be reduced to the behaviour of a minority of a minority community.

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University