Google Earth

I find myself taking issue with Lisa Park's interpretation of Google Earth, mostly because she ignores one main thing: the central philosophy behind the operation of Google. In an article in Wired magazine, Chris Anderson writes that "Google's founding philosophy is that we don't know why this page is better than that one: If the statistics of incoming links say it is, that's good enough. No semantic or causal analysis is required." Namely, Google doesn't use models, but rather a "brute force" method to 'improve' results. While this may be able to work (to a certain extent) with advertising and search results, the issues with this method become very clear with humanitarian benefits.
First of all, Google Earth (as far as I know) does not serve ads. The only way Google earns money off the program is by offering extra features in a priced "pro edition." However, the one thing Google can do is "brand" their service. They want to create as much positive information as possible about their company in order to attract new customers (after all, they do believe that the more they are linked to, the better). This is what I feel lies at the center of much of Park's argument but remains unspoken: namely, both that Google wants to draw as much attention to itself as possible and that it measures its success in "number of hits/downloads/links" (which is represented by the media's declaration of the "success" of the 'Crisis in Darfur' layer), both of which stem from the operating ideology Google maintains.
However, there's another part of Google's ideology that seems to run counter to this notion of "brute force"; namely, the company motto, "Don't Be Evil." While its methods ignore culture, its handling of internal affairs and decisions certainly don't. They want to generate attention and links, but they seem to be concerned about the nature of these links. The reason is rather obvious; while the organization of search results should be (according to Google) objective, the nature of these actual results cannot be. It's why Google's various failiures have been humorous; typing in one word only to be asked if you actually meant something else completely antithetical, or the massive widespread linking of a website using derogatory terms (like the association of "George W. Bush" with "Fail," or something like that; I don't remember the exact terms). Google realizes that, while its methods must be objective, the results of the method are subject to interpretation, and thus moves to prevent as much negative publicity as possible; that the cliche "all publicity is good publicity" is not true. Efforts like the 'Crisis in Darfur' layer serve to undermine potential criticisms of the company; by casting themselves as "good," they will not just draw attention but customers who actually try out the services after reading about them. This, to me, is about as far as Google participates in "disaster capitalism."
But, let's assume, just for a moment, that Google, regardless of any monetary gains or potential markets, actually does want to end the genocide in Darfur. This would be impossible for the company to do. Google focuses on links and information, not so much on real world action. The "Don't Be Evil" motto even focuses on these two things; if people see a link that is described/interpreted as "good," they will click on it; it is still contained by the digital realm, the world of media. It doesn't take into account interpretations of viewers; their ability to interpret information and compare it to information they already know, as well as their ability to act on it. Google only takes into account the first of these three steps, ignoring the other two (which are essential for actual action to occur). The one thing I truely do agree with Parks on is that the use of a "future imperfect"; this would theorize a reaction for the viewers to take, building it into the interpretation and pushing them to take action. It is still ultimately up to the viewer, but I believe that this method is much more effective.