danah boyd, in discussing WordPress’s Googlegate, raises some very interesting questions about friendship, ethics, and the politics of ‘community’ and commercialisation in relation to FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software) and other ‘user-led’ online communities. I’ve asked David Berry to comment on this, because he doesn’t have a blog (but should!) and if Mohammed won’t come to the mountain…stay tuned. In the meantime, here are some of my own thoughts.
The connections I make with this debate go all the way back to late 1970s/early 1980s critiques of the twin theses of resistance and incorporation in theories of (music-based) youth subcultures (which I was reminded of by Glen in a completely different discussion). It’s astonishing just how tenacious the conflation of authenticity with outside-of-capitalism resistance are, and it’s probably a symptom of the fact that the critiques took place within the studies of popular music that they haven’t travelled as far as they should. I’m thinking particularly of Angela McRobbie’s work on the idea of subcultural enterprise: opportunities to turn subcultural labor into relatively rewarding and autonomous work opportunities, and the ways in which the ethics of subcultural ‘purity’ work hand-in-hand with large-scale exploitation to be converted into virtually free labor. So the first thing to say is that we should be careful of judging Matt for simply monetizing WordPress.
On the other hand, it’s very interesting to think about the *method* he used – gaming Google by hosting hundreds of quasi-advertising articles for every spam-relevant product you can think of (and no way am I putting any of those keywords in this post!). Which also makes me think about how Big Media, for online communities, is not Hollywood, publishing, or television, but the dinosaur portals like Yahoo (witness the anxiety about yahoo acquiring flickr) and the newer web mogul Google. More importantly, there is a sense that the methods Matt used, because of their crass commercialism, are out of step with the shared values of those who use, contribute to and support WordPress (many of whom left MovableType when it ceased to be freeware, and then the developers, SixApart, bought LiveJournal).
So, like danah, I’m hoping to see a really interesting discussion about just what the ethics and shared values are for FLOSS communities particularly around enterprise as well as around the responsibilities of community leaders in terms of transparency and disclosure.
2 responses to “WordPress’s Googlegate and the Politics of Open Source”
Good post Jean, yes, it’s been a very interesting development – as you and your guest poster pointed out, issues of trust are not coextensive with particular economic arrangements, even if they are deeply intertwined. I trust Google with their “Don’t be evil” philosophy more than I do a number of open source advocates (now adding Matt to the list). Not that I trust Google all the time, but you know, if a big part of your brand is open-ness, then don’t be sneaky! (And open-source is a big part of WP’s brand, resulting in significant resource inputs as you suggest!) It’s really not that hard!
I think you raise a very interesting question about the transparency offered by open-source methods (and others) and whether that can support a new ‘trust’ and legitimacy for corporations. And I will not deny that it does strike a chime with contemporary suspicion of corporate motives and techniques and that the ‘Don’t be Evil’ slogan captures that well and is appealing.
However, ultimately companies like Google are accountable to their shareholders. And shareholder capitalism levels all corporate action to profit – the delivery of capital gains and, sometimes, dividend payments. The ‘We’re not Evil’ slogan, unfortunately, appears to me as little more than a more sophisticated method of branding the corporation. When times turn bad, and Google shareholders get angry, suddenly in order to maintian profits, ethics get thrown out the window. Just look at the recent corporate disfunctions, corruption and blatant false reporting and lying which is currently running through the American judicial system. Did they think they we’re ‘Evil’?
We could look at the slogan ‘We’re not Evil!’ as a much more cynical and depressing attempt by corporations to commodify ‘Goodwill’. When it generates revenue it will be useful. This is no different to trademark branding and will be used to distinguish Google from competitors. However it is also a very ambiguous one and has the advantage of making Google look like a White Hat in all national and cultural contexts, pretending that ‘Evil’ is so easily defined in a global context.
Is gun control Evil? Is investing in the military-industrial complex Evil? Is supporting the Iraq invasion Evil? Is Al Qaeda Evil? Are the Israelis Evil? Are the palestinian’s Evil? Is big government Evil? Is women’s oppression Evil? Is Dick Cheney Evil?
Ok well maybe the last one is easy. But the others are difficult to specify globally. And even the word ‘Evil’ is a very strange one in itself, carrying an afterglow of a sharply deferentiated Christian morality and worldview. The world is a messy place, and we need a more careful and detailed understanding of ethics, rather than a simplistic dichotomy that is corporately and rather ambiguously (un)defined.
D