Google’s Achilles’ Heel

'We are watching you, Google.' The CCP used faked evidence to cow Google into helping the Chinese regime oppress its citizens. (China Photos/Getty Images)

A word of advice to Microsoft in their recent intensified battle against Internet giant, Google: the world is waiting for a search engine that raises the bar on protecting the free flow of information and brings another level of integrity to the Wild West ethics of the World Wide Web. 

First some background. Microsoft Corp. recently unveiled Bing—its attempt at a search engine that can compete with Google. The result has only been a small market share of Google’s vast reach, which accounts for nearly 65 percent of all Web searches, according to figures from marketing firm comScore, Inc.

Google hit back last week by announcing a free operating system, Google Chrome—aiming to compete with Microsoft’s operating system, Windows. 

In the latest move, Microsoft announced on Monday that it will offer a free version of its Office suite that users can download over the Web, including a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, and note-taking programs. 

Behind all the hype, is there really any chance that Google will be overturned as search engine king or that Microsoft will be outdone by a Web-focused operating system? Probably not. Both companies are very good at what they do—which is internet searches for Google, and an operating system for Microsoft. All they are doing now is keeping each other on their toes.

If Microsoft, Yahoo, or any other company wants to knock Google out of the search engine ring, then they need to really think about what an Internet search engine is and what makes it good.

Philosophically, the premise of any internet search engine is that the free flow of information is a good thing. Type in “dog,” and you get a seemingly endless array of perspectives on dogs. And if you are looking to buy a dog or learn about dogs or find something related to dogs, then it’s a good thing. Of course Google thinks it’s a good thing too since it can have a plethora of ads related to dogs that will appeal to people interested in dogs—this is Google’s primary revenue source.

Unfortunately everything isn’t as simple as dogs. Take human rights for example. When people in China type in words related to human right in China, the free flow of information hits a wall that Google itself has put up. The Uyghur, Tibetan, Falun Gong practitioner, Democracy advocate, or human rights lawyer will have to find some other way to get their message out because Google isn’t going to be helping.

It’s an ugly fact. Since 2006, Google has been censoring itself in China and helping the Chinese communist regime stay in power so that Google can earn more ad revenue.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that this move has only been to Google’s own detriment. As recently as last month, Google was temporarily shut down for supposedly allowing easy access to pornography. Evidence suggests that it was actually because Google has been lax on allowing Google users in China to circumvent its political and human rights filters.

Regardless, Google’s kowtow to the Chinese Communist regime remains its dirty secret to the mainstream world. For Microsoft or anyone else it could also be Google’s Achilles’ heel.

What the world wants is an Internet search engine that values the free flow of information, not simply to the extent that it brings in ad revenue for itself but to the extent that it will benefit the world—and no doubt there will be good deal of revenue along the way.

Imagine alongside useful information like the weather, the news wire, interesting facts, and pop culture mania, there is an icon on your search engine that says “Change the World.” You just click “Change the World,” and you’re immediately updated on protests and happenings in oppressive countries like Iran, North Korea, and China. You are provided with lists of email addresses in those countries where you can individually send information that those people can’t otherwise get. You are given useful contacts in the U.S. government who can be alerted about some particularly heinous act in those countries that will go censored there. You are given a forum to share ideas on ways to help.

This is a strange and bold suggestion, but perhaps it’s no different than the switch from MySpace to Facebook.

At first, everyone I knew was using MySpace. The social networking site allowed a lot of creativity and options, but also had a lot of low-brow ads and seemed to only encourage people to be juvenile. Then Facebook gained even more attention from people I know. Its more organized and cleaner interface seemed to attract an even wider audience.

Now, perhaps some CEO with an eye for business and a heart of gold will realize that the next step is a more organized and cleaner world—with a better search engine.