⚖️ The Balance of Power
And who has the power to say what counts as balanced.
This week we’re bringing together posts from 2011 and 2017 where John talks about power dynamics and objectivity, both of which feel applicable today.
On Google, and evil
I was approached to write a movie about Google. The producer had rights to a book, but more importantly seemed to have access to significant people with connections in the company, both at its founding and today. I was intrigued.
I think Google is one of the most fascinating success stories of the last few decades, and certainly worthy of big-screen (or small-screen) exploration. The producer wanted to focus on the early days, which is understandable: it’s an underdog story, with scrappy geniuses inventing the future. He was particularly keen on Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” philosophy.
I jumped in: “And then, of course, the second act is about how they become evil despite themselves. It’s like Animal Farm. The pigs make all these noble rules, and then systematically subvert them.”
Crickets. I won’t be writing the Google movie.
But it’s remarkable how much my appreciation for Google has shifted. I use their products, but I don’t love the company anymore. In fact, I’m kind of nervous about them. It’s a small thing, but I stopped syncing my address book through Google. I don’t want all of my stuff in their cloud.
Some of what I’m feeling may just be the need to have a technology villain.
At a certain point, do you become so large and powerful that evil is unavoidable?
I love the United States, but it’s easy to see why many actions our country takes in its own self-interest appear evil to other parts of the world. We want to raise the standard of living worldwide — but not at the cost of American jobs. We believe strongly in human rights, unless we’re talking about suspected terrorists, in which case we go Jack Bauer in a hurry.
Espousing freedom is easy except when it threatens your own dominance. That’s the conundrum Google is in at the moment, though I wonder if they even recognize it.
Neutrality and false goals
Lewis Wallace, the only transgender reporter working at public radio’s Marketplace, was fired for this blog post questioning whether journalistic neutrality was a futile ideal:
Obviously, I can’t be neutral or centrist in a debate over my own humanity. The idea that I don’t have a right to exist is not an opinion, it is a falsehood. On that note, can people of color be expected to give credence to “both sides” of a dispute with a white supremacist, a person who holds unscientific and morally reprehensible views on the very nature of being human? Should any of us do that?
Referees for sporting matches can be neutral because they don’t have any stake in the game. The same could be said for generations of straight white reporters as they covered civil rights and gay equality. In their hearts, they might be rooting for one side, but it was obvious how to keep their personal viewpoints out of their stories.
In writing about the firing, Wallace points to the Marketplace ethics code. This seems to be the relevant clause:
Marketplace staffers must keep their political views private.
How, exactly? As a transgender person, Wallace’s existence has a political dimension. The same holds true for an African-American, a woman who uses a wheelchair, or an immigrant with an accent.
The ability to keep one’s political views private is a privilege not everyone has.
Marketplace fired a reporter for daring to point that out.
Are you enjoying this newsletter?
📧 Forward it to a friend and suggest they check it out.
🔗 Share a link to this post on social media.
🗣 Have ideas for future topics (or just want to say hello)? Reach out to Chris via email at inneresting@johnaugust.com or Mastodon @ccsont@mastodon.art