The Art of Choice

Earlier this year, the BMJ reported that a group of Italian doctors had complained to Google about sponsored links promoting unproven medical cures. The two sides squared up for this brief debacle, with the doctors calling for tighter controls and filters to ensure that medical searches did not bring up advertising for unproven products.

Love 'em or hate 'em, Google replied that they already apply controls, and nothing further was required.  Irrespective of how this finally resolves itself, it does raise the question of how sponsored information is verified on the Internet.

Take the above case in question: a search for a plant – aloe – brings up a listing that includes a sponsored link promoting aloe as a 'miracle cure for cancer'. Asking for controls over such content is a complex area, and one that would involve restricting what we can and can’t see.  Given the web’s open democratic ethos, this approach is not easily swallowed. So what exactly are the lines of demarcation?

The first consideration is the mindset of the user. If , for example, a person finds they have cancer, and they decide to try every remedy under the sun, irrespective of how outrageous it may appear to the professional, shouldn’t it be their choice to do so?  People will be drawn towards or reject content that purports to meet their expectations and needs. But desperation can make some people vulnerable to exploitation.

The mindset of those behind the sites selling the miracle cures can be anything from that of money-making opportunists to genuine believers (irrespective of how arcane it appears to others). However, one could argue the seller is essentially harmless; it’s user behaviour that makes them dangerous - a claim that is also made by the sellers of firearms!

Secondly is the sticky point of paid advertising. In the real world we have organisations like the Advertising Standards Authority to turn to when we don’t like the look of something. On the Internet, governance seems to be a mixture of self-regulation and peer pressure, and self-regulation seems to have certain limitations when money is involved. That said, Google has a vested interest in making sure that the adverts it serves are relevant, and will ‘sack’ advertisers that knowingly mislead or otherwise deceive customers because this damages Google’s own reputation.

So should we and can we regulate online advertising to look after the interests of the vulnerable and easily led? Can we empower them to make informed choices, or do we let natural selection take its course? Essentially, do we opt for a complex or simple solution?

I believe the answer lies largely with empowering individuals. As Thomas Edison said, “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn”. The human way to learn is to make mistakes along the way. Providing empowering tools is as important as allowing people to learn the skills required to benefit from them. Digital media literacy is increasingly important in today’s society, but it is unrealistic to force imposed regulation on the likes of Google.

Too much control makes for a boring experience and promotes a counterculture and the problem remains unresolved, whereas keeping it visceral and real adds value and engenders wisdom.

I don’t knock the doctors for challenging Google with their argument. Google needs to be kept accountable and not allowed to simply brush off criticisms by arguing for a free internet. But the answer is probably an unremarkably old fashioned: If you can’t trust your own initiative and apply common sense, what can anyone really do to help you and how will you ever learn?

image by will lion @ flickr