Google Gets Away With What Microsoft Couldn't

Google today launched a new version of its toolbar that employs a new feature called Autolink that turns non-linked content on Web sites into hotlinks back to Google properties and other sites. Gary Price writes...

For example, say your browsing a web page with numerous addresses on it. AutoLink will turn each of those addresses into direct links to the Google Maps database.

In addition to addresses, it will also add links for ISBNs, package tracking numbers, and vehicle identification numbers. This all has Greg Linden a bit spooked. I agree. How come nobody is crying foul here? Remember all the heat Microsoft took over its planned Smart Tags feature a few years ago? Gary alludes to it, but I think that there should be more discussion here. Let's face it, Google is to the Web what Microsoft is to PCs - the operating system everyone uses to search. It has nearly the same lock on consumers' share of mind (sorry Yahoo). And millions use the Google Toolbar. They shouldn't get away with what Microsoft was unable to. It's not fair and it shows that no matter what Google does, they can do no wrong in the eyes of the American public - at least for now. Could you imagine the uproar if Microsoft had tried this with the new MSN Toolbar Suite?

UPDATE: Dan Gillmor also weighs in on this thread, saying Google's move is a bad idea.

Comments

s/eldude/allude

[Matthias]

Way back when, we collected quite a bit of SmartTags info over here: http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Microsoft_SmartTags. Of course SmartTags wasn't the only attempt at manipulation, there was also Kazaa and Gator etc.

[Dave]

I see no problem at all. The simple solution is to uninstall the Google toolbar if you don't like the feature. Much ado about nothing.

[Dave Winer]

At least Microsoft gave sites a way to opt out, has Google done anything like that?

And to "Dave" -- suppose Google put ads for your competitors on your site? How do you "uninstall" that?

Or what if you're pro-life and they start linking every instance of the word abortion to Planned Parenthood?

And how do the readers know which links are put there by Google and which are put there by the author?

Of course we've been through this all before, with Microsoft.

[Brian Carnell]

"I agree. How come nobody is crying foul here? Remember all the heat Microsoft took over its planned Smart Tags feature a few years ago?"

Um, because MS was going to turn Smart Tags on by default in IE 6 whereas users have to actually go install a third party piece of software -- the Google Search bar -- to get this piece of functionality.

I suppose you're also going to be pissed that I have and adblocker and a Flash blocker installed on FireFox that also "rewrite" the web for sites deploying those "features."

1> It's a beta release.
2> The user has to click the autolink button for the page to get searched for "US addresses only" -- it's not automagic. The autolink option's default map provider is Google Maps (also in beta), but can be easily changed to MapQuest or Yahoo Maps.
3> "Toggle highlighting of search terms" also changes how the page looks.

Functionally it is no different than a browser plugin or third-party app. Oh wait, it is a third-party app.

The one thing that is lacking is a way to turn the auto-update feature off, by default.

[Dave Winer]

Another point...

"Give them an inch they'll take a mile."

You have to stop it here, because the arguments from this point on are hair-splits. They'll make the links look the same because the users find two kinds of links confusing. They'll change the text on the page to correct spelling first, then to correct thinking.

Steve is right, Google could easily become Big Brother.

[Steve Rubel]

I concur with Dave Winer here. Google should not have the right to change any site's content. Even though it benefits the user, it was not the publisher's intent.

[Dave Seidel]

I don't like Google doing this at all. But I should point out that if you're using Firefox as your browser (and if you aren't, you ought to), the toolbar isn't an option. And even if it were available for Firefox, it would be completely superfluous.

[Jason]

To play devil's advocate:

What if I turn on use my browser's "show no images" option?

What if I install the Mozilla Adblock extension?

What if I added Phil Ringnalda's user style sheet to my copy of Mozilla that changed the color of all links that used the nofollow attribute?

What if use a bookmarklet that changes the background color of a webpage?

All of these are ways that I'm modifying some publisher's intended presentation of his or her content; I am able to do all of them because my browser manufacturer gave me an option or feature that I'm using. Does that mean that browser manufacturers should be forced to remove the options to not load images, to use a custom stylesheet, and to use bookmarklets? (If so, then they'll also have to remove the ability to set fonts, to set text sizes, and hell, even to resize your browser window.)

I guess my point is that right now, we have a set of acceptable changes users can make to the presentation of a web page (e.g., font size, user stylesheets), all of which are acceptable because they're changes that are based on using features already built into our web browsers. But that doesn't mean that they're the only features that should be allowed -- after all, user stylesheets were a new feature introduced by the team at Mozilla, and nobody complained about that. A responsible tool builder (like Google, here) should provide a way for a web page author to disallow that tool's changes -- for example, a META header -- but that's about it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to offer their tools up.

[Brian Carnell]

Jason:

It gets even worse because there are horrific Firefox plugins like this:

https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Windows&category=Miscellaneous&numpg=10&id=316

Which modifies Amazon wishlist pages to also show Pricewatch info for the items.

oh the horrors. Somebody stop it, the sky is falling.

I think the problem is that Winer is used to the world where, as he puts it, there is only one right way to use RSS (http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2004/11/000037.html).

But different users have different needs. If you find linking all addresses to Google Maps is what you want, download the plugin and go for it. If not, don't!

[Julian Bond]

I'll add to the devil's advocate approach. Say I wrote a Firefox extension which let you highlight a zipcode and added a right click option to launch a new window with a search into Google Maps and called it GoogleMap. I think you'd all be clapping me on the back for a clever hack. Now let's say I "improved it" so that it found zip code like entries in web pages and automatically turned them into google maps links if they were plain text. You'd appreciate the improved ease of use. Now let's say I licensed the code to Google and they gave it away. Now you'd hate it because it was evidence they were evil?

I'm really not sure there's anything wrong with giving away a browser enhancement that adds value to a browser by providing links to your properties. We seem to be completely happy with doing this in the toolbar area or in the right click menu. Is the display area so sacrosanct that it's off limits?

Well what about tools like AdBlock then? What would we feel if the Google toolbar brought that functionality to IE?

Seriously. If Google produced a browser. And it had 90% market share. And if it had a feature that modifed web pages to add links to it's properties. And if the default was on. Then I think we'd be justified in being upset. But it looks to me like they are adding value in an open and above board way.

[Ron]

It's all about being in the right place at the right time. 4 years ago we were doing the dhtml/javascript/xmlhttp that google has made so popular recently.

[Jeremy Bowers]

Been here, done this. This is unethical behavior, and my answers to all the objections I've ever seen are at here (along with the rest of that work); I hope everyone will forgive me that I don't paste that whole thing here.

[Arlen Walker]

No, Jason, your'e missing the point. Those modifications aren't acceptable because they're "based on using features already built into our web browsers". Those modifications are acceptable because they don't significantly affect the perception of the page. If you block images, you see where the image is supposed to be, so you can go get it if you want it. Likewise with Flash.

The problem here is that it adds links. If I don't want to have my site link to a particular site, I should have the right to ensure it doesn't. If you still want to go there, that's fine, I don't want to stop you from doing it, I don't what I write to make it easier for you to get there.

This extra links can damage a site's reputation. For example, If I write about using a product, and you see links to that product all through my site, you have the right to call into question my objectivity. After all, if I'm accepting paid ads from that company, You may assume that anything nice I have to say about the product is bought and paid for. So you surf to me, read my text, and (thanks to Google) see links into advertisments for the product. And that makes me look like a shill, which I'm not. If I put knowledge and care into selecting the cream of the sites which address a topic, it does nothing but diminish the site to have Google sticking haphazard links in to it.

Here's what I don't get about all this: Why doesn't the person putting up the site have any say in this? MS at least gave builders the option to "opt out" of the program. I can see some, even many, sites not caring about the issue, so fine, include them. But let those who want to, opt out. I can see, for example, not opting some the sites I build/control out of the program, but I can see others that I would want to have opted out. Why don't I get some say in this?

It's no different than searching itself. Any site can opt out of Google (at least I assume they obey the robots.txt protocol like everyone else) and some do while most don't. Why force those who don't want it to have this done to their sites. Google could even add a carrot to the stick: Sites that opt out also don't get links to them put into other sites.

A similar issue is the colorization of old movies. Directors can act to prevent the colorization if they wish, and some have. Most haven't.

[Jason]

I'm sorry, Jeremy, but your essay lost me when it started on the premise that "message" (web page, in this instance) integrity is paramount, but then introduced value judgements about which forms of modifying that message are actually OK. For example, your entire section on popup blocking and advertising blocking concludes that since both measures are undertaken by the user in order to lessen the annoyance of the ads and popups, then it's acceptable; who's to say that that's a valid construct, though? Why is lessening annoyance of more ethical importance than increasing utility? Put another way, if something's OK because it lessens annoyance (popup blocking), why is something else not OK when it increases utility (Smart Tags, Autolink)? It's funny, but your essay opened my eyes -- I hadn't made the parallel with popup blocking yet, but it's a fabulous demonstration of how certain forms of renderer-based content modification has been globally deemed OK, but other forms have met the wrath of the web community. If I can't ethically publish a tool that turns ISBN numbers into links, why can I ethically publish a tool that blocks popups?

At this point, I have to ask: have you used the new Google Toolbar? Because as is very, very clear if you have, there's no change to any content unless you go up to the toolbar and click on the Autolink button. It's the same as the "highlight search terms" button -- the web page is pristine and unchanged until the end user clicks on a button which transforms it in a useful way to that specific end user. And thus, it would seem to me that since it's the end user consciously deciding to make a change to the message, it's a bit irresponsible to be slinging around words like "unethical."

This then raises a point about end-user choice, one that I believe: beyond clicking a button that transforms content, a user also makes a choice by installing a tool (extension, plug-in, toolbar, whatever) that automatically performs that transformation without the need to click some button every time. The best example of this is the aforementioned user stylesheets in Mozilla and Firefox; I can highlight whatever forms of content I choose with specific styles on every page load, and that's really my choice.

To use one of your own sentences: "Web pages are not unbreakable contracts to display certain things in certain ways, they are loose instructions for assembling images on the screen to the browser, and the browser and the browser user are free within the parameters of those instructions to render the content in many ways." While I'm not sure what authority stands behind this statement, I'll assuredly agree with it inasmuch as it's a concise statement about the reality of publishing when you don't control the content rendering end of the equation.

[Chris L]

Much ado about nothing. The web explicitly includes mechanisms to allow us to access content *and display it* the way we want it. Google now makes a tool that allows me to linkify text. Woo hoo. I have (and have seen) other plugins in and doodads that automatically link terms to wikipedia and dictionaries, others that make Amazon links and images, etc for bookt titles, others which allow one to distinguish visually between email/external/internal links, others which put thumbnail screenshots next to lists of links...

If you don't want clients to be able to exercise any control on the way they view *and enhance* the information they are seeing then don't publish on the web where the locus of control is no longer centered around the content provider. Use paper instead-- and hope your users don't have scanners or pencils.

Ummmmm, Arlen -- three responses:

First, how can you say that blocking images or Flash doesn't affect the perception of the page? For example, if you block a site's Flash-based navigation, then of course you're altering it in a big way; likewise if you block a background image that provides context, information, or layout hints.

Second, if you actually use the new Toolbar, you'll see that there are no links inserted into or changes made to any web page without the user clicking on the Autolink button. Nobody's nefariously changing the content of your web page behind the back of you and the user, but rather, the user is manually and specifically choosing to use a feature of a tool. (And it deserves to be said, as well, that the same user chose to install that tool, and in so also made a choice.)

And lastly, as for your point that you should be able to opt out of it, I'll concede... by quoting the very post of mine to which you responded: "A responsible tool builder (like Google, here) should provide a way for a web page author to disallow that tool's changes -- for example, a META header -- but that's about it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to offer their tools up."

[Chris L]

And yes, I read through Jeff Bowers' work. Much of what is written there would be true if users weren't voluntarily invoking the mechanisms of annotation, description, and linking. As long as they are AWARE and can CONTROL these mechanisms, then all the rest is just so much empty handwringing.

The simultaneity of the processes doesn't make them worse, a simple mistake to make. One might as well make it illegal to search for URLs in Technorati and del.icio.us and see user comments, or any other mechanism by which people can find information that is about or directed to a web resource. The fact that these tools make those links easier and automatic shouldn't be a problem...

[Jeremy Bowers]

but then introduced value judgements about which forms of modifying that message are actually OK.

An incorrect reading. It's actually a discussion about which things that look like changes actually aren't. That's what the whole discussion on "independence" is.

I'll freely and happily concede there are fuzzy boundaries, but my boundaries are less fuzzy than most, nor does the mere existance of fuzzy boundaries entitle one to just throw everything away.

And if you're willing to throw away message integrity, hey, go for it. I'm not the Ethics God any more than anybody else. But prepare to pay for it.

[Jason]

But the "independence" debate is a red herring, since by your rules, it's not for the end user to decide whether an image, an ad, or any other bit of the page is truly independent of the content. You acknowledge that animated images might or might not be ads, yet it's still OK under those rules for me to turn off the animation wholesale, thus modifying those that are actually part of the author's content?

In reality, absent the presence of spyware, an image appears either on or in conjunction with a web page only if the web page publisher chooses for it to be there. (Note that in some cases, the image choices are explicit, like graphs, charts, screenshots, and that sort of thing, and in other cases the image choices are implicit, like an ad block included by the publisher in which any of a number of ads could appear.) If the paramount rule truly is that message integrity is inviolable, and logically integrity is an attribute that originates in the eye of the publisher who created the message, then the exceptions that you allow for, and in fact any exceptions at all, don't make sense. That's why it's not all about integrity, but rather a balance between integrity and end user choice.

[Randy Charles Morin]

Google obviously wasn't thinking. They just lost a bit more Karma :(

[TDavid]

I'm with Randy in the last comments.

Google_Evil++

[John Furrier]

This is a piss on the user experience issue and a land grab by Google. We had this when I was the VP of Product at RealNames in 1999. Very dangerous. Trust and user experience needs to be maintained.

There is a button on the toobar that says 'Autolink' . When you click it, it scans the page looksing for addresses and such. It does nothing automatically, *you* need to click for the highlighting to take effect. Try going to a contact page of a web site that lists a street address. the button changes to 'Find Map', or if it sees ISBM numbers, changed to 'Show Book Info'. When you click on it, takes you to the appropriate place. nothing happens without user intervention.

[Helge Moulding]

Looks as if a lot of people imagine harm done by Google's move. I'm on the web, and I don't see any harm done. Looks also as if these same people are ignoring the competent arguments made that suggest that Google has done nothing unethical. Why am I not surprised?

[karl]

The difference here is simple. People CHOOSE to willingly go out of thier way and go to google's website to download this bar and install it onto thier machine. They were not forced to do it, nor is this feature stuck with you once you install the bar, you can turn it off.

The reason people bitch and moan when Microsoft does something like this is simply because then the user is stuck with something they never asked for. The user that doesn't know better is also shoveled into using MSN Search even if they would liked to have used something else because that nifty smart tag feature won't use that search engine.

MS really shot themselves in the foot when they didn't just accept the DOD's plan to split the company in two. If the OS was seperate from the applications and services that MS is constantly pushing there would be a lowered hatred for the OS, not by much, but at least bundling would go away.

[Zsolt]

Simple... If Google makes money from my site via the autolink feature (user activated or automatic, doesn't matter) by advertising it's own sites, then I want a share of that.

[Alex]

I've to say that this post is very deceptive. This has nothing in common with Microsoft's case, mainly for the following reasons:

-You don't have to install the toolbar in the first place.
-Even if you do install - the feature ISN't turned on by default.

[Randy Charles Morin]

Well, let me rephrase my thought. I did not say Google = Evil. I said they lost a bit of Karma. Truth, Google's smart tags are not that bad. It seems you have to click a button before the page is marked up with smart tags.

[Ben]

It's not so much what you do but rather how you do it. As stated at Slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/02/18/1652244.shtml?tid=217&tid=17): "except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click."

[Chris]

I have not tested the new google bar yet. I have always been a fan of the toolbar, but I would have to agree that if it actually takes a link(or text) and modifies that text that it is not proper conduct.
One way this could be conducted and be a bit more 'nice' about things is to add those links to the bottom of the page. If some indication must be made to the place in the page they are deriveing the link from highlighting can be used (much the same as they do with the search engine).

[austin]

Bestbuy.com certainly has the right to not have Sony TV's on their site linked to other sites selling Sony TV's.
It is illegal for Circuit City to setup shop in a Bestbuy store and advertise. Google will be sued (and will lose) if their toolbar does this.

[Helge Moulding]

Funny. Suddenly the tone of the discussion changes. Suddenly it's not about the integrity of the message, but about who gets to make money. How very typical.

I suppose Bestbuy might sue Google if their toolbar ended up providing links from the Bestbuy catalog to Circuit City. It's almost inevitable, since we all love to sue. But I don't think Bestbuy is guaranteed a win. I don't see a basis for a judgement. No laws are broken. No agreements breached. But then I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps a real lawyer can cite case law to demonstrate why Google would lose such a case?

[nick]

Oh dear. Let's just say that we're not in Smart Tags territory any more. Personal desktop web proxies and variants thereof are turning into the rule rather than the exception, thanks to ad-blockers, pop-up blockers etc.

If you block images, you see where the image is supposed to be, so you can go get it if you want it. Likewise with Flash.

Just to reiterate what Jason and others have said, that's simply not the case: my filtering proxy removes any trace of suspect images or Flash. And has been able to do so for many years. (RIP, Scott Lemmon.)

Trust and user experience needs to be maintained.

Hmm. I'll just wait and see if there's an outcry if a site owner uses referrer-log data to go after users who block their pop-ups and ad banners. Or their spyware/malware ActiveX plugins. Because, after all, the integrity of the page must be maintained.

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle here. If the personal browser proxy and web content filter can taketh away, why can't it giveth? Opt-in content munging is not a new thing -- proxies like the Proxomitron did it years ago. And I wonder what people think of the 'ethical' implications of things like Stefan Magdalinski's WikiProxy, which adds WikiPedia and Technorati links to the BBC News Online site?

[Adam Weinroth]

Let's all take a deep breath and relax. Sites modify, repurpose and represent content from other sites all the time. It's common practice -- anyone have a My Yahoo account?

One point that seems painfully absent from the feedback here is that a company is not a democracy. You want to vote? Don't use Google products -- there's your vote. Alternatively, you could publish and market your own toolbar software. There's probably enough business and technical talent in this comment thread to do just that quite readily.

This discussion reminds me of the public outrage that ensued when "New Coke" was introduced. Ah yes, the beloved brand alters its sacred recipe. Hey, maybe if all the victims moan and groan loudly enough, we will be able to download Google Toolbar Classic?

[Scott Cropper]

Everyone seems to be up in arms about the new Google Toolbar but I don't think most have even picked it up before putting it down.

Here are the facts :

1. The toolbar has to be installed first before it can do any autolinking.
2. Autolinking is off by default so it has to be turned on after installing the toolbar.
3. The toolbar does not change existing links, only text that is not currently linked.
4. The toolbar has the option of choosing which map service you would like to use; Google Maps, MapQuest or Yahoo! Maps.
5. VIN numbers, although rarely found as plain text, link to CarFax's website and show the vehicle details.
6. Tracking numbers go to the corresponding companies package info page. These are also rarely found as plain text except in emails.
7. ISBN numbers take you to Amazon's website and show the book details. This will make a plain text ISBN a link to Amazon even on Barnes and Noble's website.
8. Its a beta release.

Except for # 7 there is nothing wrong with what the Google Toolbar does. It has to be chosen by the user, turned on and does give options and behaves nicely. Google should give the option to choose which service you want it to use for the VIN and ISBN detailed information. Other than that I don't know what all the fuss is about.

[William Morris]

Re Scott's No. 7:

"The toolbar does not change existing links, only text that is not currently linked."

Hmmmm. So does that mean that as a reaction against Google's Autolinks commercial sites will link as much text as possible to their own products or those of their affiliates?

This could lead to some migraine-inducing Web pages.

[Martin]

I can't believe that anyone is legally allowed to modify the content or the designed layout of a website. If the site/page has a copyright notice then surely Google would be liable to a flood of copyright litigation...

Any lawyers care to comment.

Martin.

[aswitzer]

Per Jeffrey Zeldman's suggestion (the original blog I found out about this Autolink feature thru) I contacted Google to suggest they at least add a meta tag to disable this feature at the website level, just like Microsoft did.

I suggest anyone that doesn't like this feature do the same. Google has been a good netizen long enough that I would hope they would respond to enough feedback:

http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/request.py

Alan

[Sig]

I am a bit torn on the autolink feature. In some ways its good for the user but it is easy to see why publisher would be fuming. I've developed a script called LinkZu that essentially gives the publisher and those that design the webpage the same power as autolink but with complete control over the linkage. It is also not nearly as intrusive, transparent in a way.

[H9T]

The U.S. copyright office permits the registration of websites.
But registration is not necessary to obtain a copyright.
Copyright is automatic on publication.
Adding links or content to a website without the author's consent violates U.S. copyright law and is a federal criminal offense.

[Lars]

Alan:

I agree.. publishers should have the right opt-out as well. Makes me wonder if inserting an exclude META tag in the header would have a negative affect on the sites Google ranking though.. +_+

[sps coral]

I have already seen occasions when the autolink feature brings up competitors websites-- ecommerce competitors. This is horrible, whether or not it is a violation of copyright law.

[chicago hypnosis]

Steve,

You're absolutely correct that we should be more up in arms than we are. An optout feature is critical here. If we don't make Google implement that option we are doomed. They are literally taking our content and manipulating it for their own profit. What is on MY domain is my property, protected under my copyright. They cannot change it for their own purposes, which is what the Autolink feature is doing.

[casey ryan]

Microsoft had Netscape behind the antitrust stuff... who is going to go up against Google really? You're right that they are beloved in the eyes of the American public, but who's their competitor??? Yahoo? AskJeeves? or maybe just maybe... Microsoft. They're launching a bunch of stuff this year in direct cometition to google.

[Sean]

It is amazing what a savvy PR department can do for public perception these days. This stems much farther than just a toolbar and resides down to privacy issues with your e-mail and beyond. Imagine if Microsoft publically stated their e-mails were being scanned to show relevant ads.

The problem I have is that when you let a company like Google get away with stuff like this, they'll continue to push the envelope. Are we that far away from seeing the toolbar overwrite your white space with their ads?

[Brad Geddes]

I think my biggest issue with the entire toolbar is that it autoupdated itself on several machines.

This is why the gmail notifier was uninstalled by many - they want control over their own machines.

It's one thing when someone willingly updates their toolbar, another when someone else forces the change through.

[Webdesign]

There is even möglickeit itself a its own to provide toolbar free of charge. I do not have the name in the head… at the best google