Google as a political subject: the right to be forgotten debate 2014-2016
| Pages | 768-783 |
| Date | 08 October 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0198 |
| Published date | 08 October 2018 |
| Author | Linnéa Lindsköld |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Bibliometrics,Databases,Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet,Records management & preservation,Document management |
Google as a political subject:
the right to be forgotten debate
2014–2016
Linnéa Lindsköld
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to create knowledge on how Google and Google search are
discursively constructed as a political subject suitable or not suitable for governing in the debate regarding
the Right to be Forgotten ruling (RTBF).
Design/methodology/approach –A total of 28 texts are analysed using a Foucauldian discourse analysis
focussing on political problematisations in the media and in blogs.
Findings –Google is conceptualised as a commercial company, a neutral facilitator of the world and as a
judge of character. The discourse makes visible Google’s power over knowledge production. The individual
being searched is constructed as a political object that is either guilty or innocent, invoking morality as a part
of the policy. The ruling is framed as giving individuals power over companies, but the power still lies within
Google’s technical framework.
Originality/value –The ruling opens up an empirical possibility to critically examine Google. The value of
the study is the combination of focus on Google as a political subject and the individual being searched to
understand how Google is constructed in the discourse.
Keywords EU, Discourse analysis, Information policy, Google search, Right to be forgotten
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Google is an important subject in information politics, influencing how knowledge is
constructed and distributed, thus being pol itical (Introna and Nissenbaum, 2000;
Vaidhyanathan, 2012). Google search is not giving an objective reflection of the world,
rather it is producing search results through, among other things, tools like PageRank and
personalised search (Hillis et al., 2013; Vaidhyanathan, 2012). In this context, the term
“political”refers to the impact Google has on power relations in society, both on account of
being a multinational company and the dominant search engine, influencing how
knowledge is constructed and distributed (Vaidhyanathan, 2012). As a result of the latter,
search engines have a profound effect on subject formation and identity when individuals
are being searched (Lyon, 2001; Vaidhyanathan, 2012; van Zoonen, 2013). Researchers have
problematized Google’s dominant role on the market during the last decade. The question of
whether and how Google should be governed by nations or supranations has also been part
of this discussion (Dwyer, 2016; Halavais, 2009; Hillis et al., 2013; Vaidhyanathan, 2012).
The latest addition to the governing of Google by the EU is the Right to be Forgotten ruling
(RTBF) instigated by the European Court of Justice (CJEU). Since May 2014, EU citizens have
been able to apply for search engine companies to remove search results of their name if the
information is deemed to be irrelevant or in other ways inaccurate. This new policy opens up an
empirical possibility for investigating different conceptualisations of Google in the media and
how these conceptualisations make possible different actions towards the company. The aim of
this paper is thus to create knowledge on how Google and Google search are discursively
constructed in the debate as a political subject suitable or not suitable for governing.
Online Information Review
Vol. 42 No. 6, 2018
pp. 768-783
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0198
Received 27 June 2017
Revised 20 October 2017
26 January 2018
14 February 2018
Accepted 14 March 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
This study was conducted within the project “Knowledge in a Digital World. Trust, Credibility and
Relevance on the Web”, funded by a framework grant from the Swedish Research Council 2013-2016.
768
OIR
42,6
To accomplish this, I will identify and analyse the political problematisations, in
media and blogs, of the “Right to be Forgotten”ruling, which emerged during the period
2014–2016. I will also discuss how these problematisations challenge or add to common
conceptualisations of the company and its search engine.
The results will build towards a greater understanding of how large internet companies
such as Google can be subject to governing.
This study concerns technologies that most of us use everyday and which are
incorporated in our way of life. Few of us understand the technology or the policies behind
such tools as Google search, which limits the way users can make informed decisions
(Proferes, 2016). News articles and blog posts are important media for mediating and
explaining information policy issues that affect the public. However, such reporting builds
upon existing discourse and may reinforce power structures. Therefore, it is relevant to
examine the framing of “problems”that a certain policy is set to resolve.
Focussing on the debates in media and on blogs on a policy proposal that affects Google
is one way of rendering Google visible (Haider, 2014). The study focusses only on visible
search results, not commodification of personal information, i.e., implicit or explicit
harvesting of personal information that is being sold to advertisers.
First, the study is framed through a review of relevant literature on the politics of search
engines and searching (Section 2), followed by a presentation of my methodological
framework (Section 3). Using a Foucauldian discourse analysis, it is possible to analyse
the different problematisations of the policy and how Google is conceptualised in these
(Bacchi, 2009). Then, the results are presented, focussing on how Google the company and
Google the search tool are politicised in the discourse, as well as how Google is
conceptualised as a judge of moral character (Section 4). Thereafter, the results are
discussed in relation to earlier research with regard to the framing of the ruling as a way of
giving power to individuals over companies. This notion is challenged (Section 5) and
finally, conclusions are drawn.
2. The politics of Google and the effects of search
Before describing the RTBF ruling in more detail, relevant research on the politics of Google
and on the effects of search are discussed.
2.1 Information politics
From a social-constructionist perspective, search engines are never neutral, objective tools
for information retrieval. Introna and Nissenbaum (2000) had already discussed that how
biases in search engines might limit the web and its use in society, something they identify
as a political problem. Halavais writes how search engines become invisible in our
everyday life; it is something we use without reflecting on the limitations of these tools.
He argues, as well as Vaidhyanathan (2012) and Hillis et al. (2013) that search engines,
with Google as the major example, forms our understandings of knowledge. Halavais
(2009, p. 1) writes that our culture has a common assumption of search engines: “[…]thata
search engine will lead someone to a page that contains accurate information, and that
questions are best directed first to a machine and only after that to other people”.Through
biases in their infrastructure, search engines contribute to forming our understanding of
identity, knowledge and the world. For example, a bias can be how search results are
presented according to relevance, which affects what we perceive as important. In other
words, search engines are political and the commercial companies behind them have great
influence over how we perceive the world (Introna and Nissenbaum, 2000; Halavais, 2009;
Vaidhyanathan, 2012).
Monica Horten (2016) writes that there are two different perspectives or narratives in an
information policy discourse, highlighting the conflicts between various actors such as
769
Google as a
political
subject
To continue reading
Request your trial