Vaidhyanathan is a frequent contributor on media and cultural issues in various periodicals including The Chronicle of Higher Education, New York Times Magazine, The Nation, and, and he maintains a blog, He is a frequent contributor to National Public Radio and to MSNBC.COM and has appeared in a segment of 'The Daily Show' with Jon Stewart. From 1999 through the summer of 2007 he worked in the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University. Siva Vaidhyanathan is a cultural historian and media scholar, and is currently a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia. Because we focus so much on the miracles of Google, we are too often blind to the ways in which Google exerts control over its domain.

And like Caesar's, Google's appeal is almost divine. Like Caesar, Google has found its mandate to rule through vast popular support, even in the absence of a referendum. Before Caesar, there was chaos and civil war, presided over by weak, ineffective leaders who failed to capture the support of the people or to make Rome livable. But overall, no single state, firm, or institution in the world has as much power over Web-based activity as Google does. So Google, which rules by the power of convenience, comfort, and trust, has assumed control, much as Julius Caesar did in Rome in 48 B.C. States such as Germany, France, Italy, and Brazil have found some ways to govern over and above Google's influence. In the People's Republic of China, the state clearly runs the Web. Still, architecture and state-generated law govern imperfectly. Like Jessica Rabbit in the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the Internet is not bad-it's just drawn that way. Not only does law matter online, but the specifics of the Internet's design or 'architecture' influence how the Web works and how people behave with it. But we now know that the Internet is not as wild and ungoverned as we might have naively assumed back at its conception.

It was supposed to be a perfect libertarian space, free and open to all voices, unconstrained by the conventions and norms of the real world, and certainly beyond the scope of traditional powers of the state. The question is whether Google's dominance is the best situation for the future of our information ecosystem. In the early days it was easy to assume that the Web, and the Internet of which the Web is a part, was ungoverned and ungovernable. This was a quite necessary step at the time. Google just stepped into the void when no other authority was willing or able to make the Web stable, usable, and trustworthy. No state appointed Google its proxy, its proconsul, or viceroy. There was never an election to determine the Web's rulers.

The googlization of everything