Surely most of you have seen Google’s “new” feature, Gmail Motion. If not, check out the video below:
Gmail Motion
The April Fools’ posting has become a bit of a tradition at Google. My personal favorite is Google Gulp. There’s a lot of fun to be had here for sure. But there’s also a lesson to be learned – or at least something serious to think about.
The Google pranks work because, like it or not, they are presented in the same “trust us, it’s OK” fashion as the rest of Google’s services. Like it or not, we have become accustomed to filling in forms, following links, and generally passively interacting with services we use online. When Google says “click here to find out about this amazing new service,” we probably do so. And when Google shows us a video about this new service, we expect to be (and are perhaps conditioned to think) that everything the video demonstrates is as great as it purports it to be.
Google, of course, capitalizes on this in building the visual elements of the prank. For example, the link to the prank is subtly included at the top right of the Gmail webmail client and below the Google homepage search field. These locations are precisely where Google draws us into legitimate new products. So we click.
The prank deepens with the landing page, the video on which is linked to above. The page is decked out just like any other Google product page. The usual language, font set, graphical flare – it’s all there. It draws us in in such a way that it might take a few minutes before we actually think critically about the substance. And, depending on how strong this effect is, we might be half through a tweet or Facebook posting about the service before we realize we’ve been duped. Not because we’re stupid. But because we’re operating on some sort of aesthetically-driven autopilot.
The point is that trusted parties such as Google have enormous ability to leverage the trust of users. In this case, the harm is minimal. A little embarrassment, if anything. This won’t always be the case. Google (and other major providers such as Facebook) are adept at using visual architecture, friendly tone, and other “trust cues.” Where the end result is a short video that informs you of the prank, there’s not much to worry about. But where the end result is unwitting participation in a terrible service such as Buzz, the ante is significantly upped.
The solution isn’t, of course, that we shouldn’t trust anything online. Services such as Gmail exist because we all trust Google with our content. Such trust, unmitigated, is problematic. But such trust, properly limited, is necessary to ensure the societal surplus that results when we can all use a valuable service such as Gmail. Rather, the problem is the risk of passive use and acculturation – the problem of “clicking here” or filling out a form by rote and without proper consideration.
I don’t have a solution for this problem in mind. For the moment, I’d just suggest that while we laugh at Google’s gag, we take a moment to think about why it’s so effective – and how the engine of that efficacy drives more serious and problematic privacy issues online.