Search Engines a la Noumenal World

In “Google’s Media Barons” Harpers depicts free search engines as “disinterested parties whose glorious mission is to educate and uplift.” The article is claiming that for-profit search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and Yelp are taking advantage of the advertising market by creating advertisements and allowing entities to pay for the positioning of their site on search results. Harper’s goes on to suggest that search engines should not be for profit and that the Internet community is being scammed by these newly appointed power houses. These search engines have revolutionized the way we live our lives and I believe that free services would not have the innovative momentum or the funds to progress as well as the current for profit companies do.

            The convenient life enhancements for profit search engines have yielded are being taken for granted by the author. Harpers insinuates that people of the 21^st century are allowing technology to maneuver them into paying for services/products that they don't need. Their attack, working off the value states (Fahnestock), aims at making the reader feel cheated and naked. According to Fahnestock's stasis levels the value level is considered a higher stases. Although arguments are more complex they have the ability to mold the lower levels of stases. I think this call to action from the publication editor is roots back to the fact that users are accessing information for FREE. The widespread effect of search engines is great considering that the average person has a Google account. Also important to know; the author of this article is a magazine publisher. He feels that search engines are making profits off content that they do not own. Essentially, all they do is hyperlink relevant information and display it on their interface. 

            On the contrary, Grant Davies’ definition of exigence supports this articles publication. The for-profit search engine business has recently blossomed and is a multi billion-dollar industry. The confusion can be seen in the effect it has on the potential market for the text. The readers of Harpers are more than likely to use one of the mentioned search engines. People are alarmed when they read about the search engine they have as a homepage ripping them off.

            The article mentions a not for profit search engine called “free”. The author uses confusion to call the readers to action. It is almost as if there is a call for a revolution. I believe that shifting to a not for profit search engine system would slow the technological revolution that we are currently in. Google has innocently integrated itself into contemporary human life. If there were any evidence proving that Google was harming its users then the article would be more appropriate.

            From a value stases it is understandable that the publisher of a Magazine would be disgruntled at these search engines for making millions of dollars for just displaying his work. Search engines not for profit belong in the noumenal world. Economy is driven by competition. Success is - sadly- measured in profits and we are too far into the game to make such drastic changes.

http://harpers.org/blog/2013/01/googles-media-barons/