The internets are all astir over a recent Wired.com article predicting the death of the internet; I wouldn't touch that one with a 60 foot fiber optic cable. I'm not interested in pretending to be a soothsayer or impressing anyone with faux insight into a topic that I admittedly know nothing about. Instead, I'd like to focus on a recent Wall Street Journalinterview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Naturally, Mr. Schmidt could not have read the Wired article when he sat down with reporter Holman Jenkins, but in retrospect, the majority of his comments seem like a calculated rebuttal to the article's central premise.

To be fair, Wired merely cataloged what tons of analysts have been saying about Google and its ilk for a while now. In other words, Schmidt's remarks are indirectly related to the Internet doomsday hypothesis that's currently en vogue. Critics are stressing the abundance of apps that dominate many web user's digital experience these days, which render Google's search platform wholly irrelevant. Couple that with Google's penchant for failing at staying ahead of the next big trend, and you've got a recipe for a downfall. The company appears to be going through the corporate equivalent of an identity crisis, although Schmidt's enduring optimism indicates they're in a massive state of denial over their prospects. For instance, he claims that people want Google to essentially think for them, in a manner similar to that of a newspaper. Maybe his comment has designed to kiss up to the reporter, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he was being totally sincere.

Taken at face value, Schmidt's comparison of search to an industry hanging on by a respirator is quite prolific. The failure of the newspaper business is certainly related to the rise of the digital age and it's endless amount of free content, yet I would argue that the industry's decline stems from the very characteristic Schmidt wishes to emulate. When I read a print newspaper, my choice of articles and topics has already been made for me. Sure, I can skip the stuff I have zero interest in (i.e. the Business section), but my selection is automatically limited by the format itself. Personally, I read all my news online because about 90% of the stories that I find important enough to read about don't end up on the pages or broadcasts of corporate controlled media outlets. The last thing I want to see is Google imitate this antiquated form of benign thought control, although his line of reasoning does explain a lot about Google's page ranks.

Among the multiple disturbing nuggets in this piece is Schmidt's explanation as to why Google doesn't need to be regulated. He states that Google has no incentive to freak its users out, despite its commitment to targeted advertising, so it will simply police itself. Since self-regulation has been successful since the dawn of free market capitalist economy theories, the FCC should rightly bow out. Maybe then they can focus their attention on systematically deregulating themselves into oblivion.

Even weirder is Schmidt's assertion that young people will be permitted to legally change their names in order to distance themselves from "youthful indiscretions" preserved on social networking sites. Anyone who remembers that presidential election of 2000 knows that "youthful indiscretions" is the preferred Republican euphemism for drug use and kinky sex. It must've been a looooooooong time since Schmidt filled out a job application or submitted a resume because companies always ask about name changes. Lying on employment forms is always an option, though it doesn't get you very far these days, partly thanks to Schmidt's business. Most likely, it'll be virtually impossible to fudge these kinds of things 10 years from now. He says that society needs to really think about these new realities, then demonstrates that he himself hasn't given them much consideration. If Mr. Schmidt is as out of touch as he comes off in this interview, then pat the folks at Wired on the back and prepare for the post-Google interwebs.