off.Root

Google’s had fun pushing its AutoLink functionality, and as would be expected there are those — particularly in the blogosphere — who have voiced their opposition (some more vocally than others).

The problem with AutoLink is that it transparently alters the content of an author’s page, all without the author’s knowledge, consent, or ability to remove such functionality (and remember, Google puts the fun in functionality). To the best of my knowledge the links aren’t even marked with a rel=”autolink” or something similar that would allow an author to note those links in an aesthetically pleasing manner (although requiring developers to have to opt-out of transparency is still backwards).

One of the great things about the web is that when you’re reading a blog or something similar, you know where it’s coming from. You know who wrote it, and the author of content has the editorial freedom to distribute their content as they please. The end user can of course change font size, ignore images, or even swap out entire stylesheets — but the integrity of the content remains intact.

AutoLink tosses all of this out the window. Users don’t necessarily know what’s up, and the author’s content can be very adversely affected. Editing editorial content even in print can, if done poorly, change its entire meaning. Having a shiny new link (or 10) to Google drives visitors away, obliging or not, and that has a similar effect. (Though, thankfully, we have some people who can at least play the same game.)

The web is very much an interactive forum, which is what allows things like AutoLink to take hold in the first place. But consider how the web grows, and play devil’s advocate with me for a second as I discuss the necessity of advertisements:

• Costs of running GreatWebsite exceed acceptable threshold; content provider turns to advertisements
• AdHater3282 enjoys GreatWebsite, but hates the ads. AdHater removes ads using AdBlock (or something similar).
• Owner of GreatWebsite is forced to turn to more profitable (and more annoying) ads, alienating AdHaters3283-4620. Income remains low, site becomes unsustainable.

The blocking of advertisements is perhaps a different issue in that it does not affect the original content of the author, but the point stands: whenever one accesses a document on the Internet, they are subject to certain standards if out of nothing more than common decency. If I access a page with an essay on a controversial topic, the author should have the right to know that the content is being presented in its entirety or not at all. The end user does not have the inherent right to have a program automatically remove substantial sections of the essay transparently, or add links to opposing viewpoints, because it fundamentally alters the essential content on the page.

So what right does the end user have in regards to AutoLink? “It’s my browser, I’ll do what I want!” I hear them say.

Ultimately, as happens in a free society, the end user has the right not to view content from this provider. It’s the same reasoning that prevents one from slashing the prices on goods from the store because they view the original prices as too high — the right of the consumer is not to make the price “fair” if they view it as excessive, but to simply not purchase the item in question. User endorsed advertisements placed directly into my content violates the “terms,” if you will (without backing into a corner screaming), upon which I expect one to be viewing my site. There are standards by which end users must be held (even if the *AA is stealing your money), and if any user finds any author’s terms too restrictive, then it is the right of that end user to obtain content from a different provider.

The freedom of choice, my friends. Use it wisely.