Straight from the horses mouth:
“Doubts have been raised over whether personalisation to this extent is even desirable for society. There’s a fear that filters will become so narrow, we’ll wind up living in a bubble of our own prejudice,” said Schmidt.
“In practical terms – what’s the alternative?” he then asked. “Without some form of filtering, we would drown in information. So the real question is, if not personalisation, what kind of filtering should we have? The nanny model where someone else has the power to dictate what you should and shouldn’t see? Or the lucky dip model where things are plucked out at random? To my mind, both these alternatives to personalisation are far worse.”
— Eric Schmidt, MacTagart Lecture, 2011.
How about doing the responsible thing, not assuming that you always know best, and giving control back to the user? It’s a struggle to see how what G is doing now isn’t exactly the “nanny model”, as they are using their “power to dictate what you should and shouldn’t see”.
Anyway, nice job presenting a false dichotomy Eric. It’s understood that PageRank, on it’s own, is no longer enough to please your customers, but does that mean that it shouldn’t be available as an option to the minions?