« "We must fight the net" | Main | Open source's other advantage »
The trust scale
January 30, 2006
Here's Google CEO Eric Schmidt, at Davos, defending the company's decision to censor search results in China: “We concluded that although we weren’t wild about the restrictions, it was even worse to not try to serve those users at all. We actually did an evil scale and decided not to serve at all was worse evil.” Others have also put Google's decision on the "evil scale" and found that the good outweighs the bad. Here's David Weinberger: "It's a tough world. Most of what we do is morally mixed ... If forced to choose - as Google has been - I'd probably do what Google is doing. It sucks, it stinks, but how would an information embargo help? It wouldn't apply pressure on the Chinese government. Chinese citizens would not be any more likely to rise up against the government because they don't have access to Google. Staying out of China would not lead to a more free China."
Once you jettison Google's "don't be evil" absolutism, in other words, it becomes possible to make a relativist argument that Google did the right thing. The argument hinges on a historically dubious assumption - that you have a better chance to change a government's behavior through appeasement than through confrontation - but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong in this particular case.
That's not the whole story, though. As John Gapper explains in an op-ed in today's Financial Times, there is a practical case to be made that Google, like Yahoo and Microsoft before it, made the wrong choice in collaborating with the Chinese government. "Internet companies," he writes, "cannot simply shrug off their opportunism in China." Unlike other companies that choose to do business in China on the government's terms, "internet giants should be held - and should hold themselves - to higher standards."
Why? Gapper points to two reasons. First:
the internet industry is regulated far more lightly than many others. The internet is treated as an open space for the public, a creative commons not subject to the restrictions that bind other areas of communications ... We know how fragile the self-restraint of regulators and governments becomes when people believe companies are abusing their freedoms ... Internet companies enjoy unique privileges at the moment and could easily find them taken away if their reputations deteriorate.
Gapper notes that Google has fought hard to maintain the internet's neutrality - to prevent telephone and cable companies from giving preference to certain content running over the network. But Google's case weakens substantially when it begins to compromise the network's neutrality itself. If Google can work with the Chinese government to give some speech preference over other speech - to draw distinctions between different forms of content on purely political grounds - it becomes much harder for it to argue against other companies drawing distinctions between different kinds of content on purely commercial grounds.
Gapper's second reason:
the internet acts for most of us as an instrument of liberation ... It brings a means of communication through e-mail or instant messaging that crosses national borders. Through search engines such as Google, it also allows us to find and peruse a huge amount of information ... That is a double-edged sword. A search engine is wonderful if you are the searcher but what about when a government searches for you? That happened to Shi Tao, a dissident Chinese journalist sentenced to 10 years in prison last year for "revealing state secrets" after Yahoo submitted to the government's demand to know who was using a Yahoo e-mail address.
The internet's special status hinges on trust, in other words. It's hard to sustain that trust if you agree to collaborate with repressive regimes.
"In these circumstances," Gapper concludes, "the internet giants ought to tread very carefully. The benefits of an open internet, free from clumsy regulation and inquisitive authorities, have been huge. But they need not last and will be curtailed if the public loses faith in Google and others. China is a vast market but what does it profit an internet company if it gains the whole world and loses its soul?"
Advertisement: Coming this spring: Nicholas Carr's new book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. Preorder now from Amazon.
Comments
And what will Google or Yahoo say if Beijing offers them a sweetheart deal in return for censoring not what information can be accessed *in* China but instead what information can be accessed *about* China anywhere else ?
And more importantly, how will we know if certain data points Beijing finds unwelcome temporarily disappears or shows up on page 15 instead of page 2 of a search is a result of an algorithmic quirk or a quiet understanding between the internet giant and Communist authorities ?
The problem with compromising one's credibility is that people will subsequently conclude that your credibility is compromised.
Posted by: mark safranski at January 30, 2006 12:59 PM
One thing I find striking in all the relativistic navel gazing is the lack of humility. In the rich and varied fantasy world occupied by some commentators, one would think that if Google's search capabilities were really *that compelling* then the Chinese would be making concessions for them. But instead, we find Google's product is at best average when compared to other offerings. That's why they had to capitulate.
I guess an advertising company requires billboards that work well and provide enough "click efficacy." I really think it's that simple. The 'do no evil' part is just bad P.R. that will be forgiven... once they bring out some new smoke and mirrors software device into BETA development.
Posted by: gummi at January 30, 2006 05:09 PM
It is hard to believe there is no business angle to Google’s decision to agree to terms set forth by the Chinese government. If a tiny country, such as, say Fiji, were to set similar conditions, how would the oracle tip the evil scale?
Posted by: Sriram Mahalingam at January 30, 2006 11:00 PM
Just an FYI.
Free Press is organizing its 220,000 activists in a letter writing campaign to pressure the CEOs of the most rapacious telephone and cable companies to keep their hands off our Internet. They're also sending letters to Congress to to ensure that they put enforceable network neutrality principles into our telecommunications laws and regulations.
More at www.freepress.net/deadend.
Posted by: Timothy Karr at January 31, 2006 07:18 AM
What about the fact that Google already censors search results in France and Germany?
Posted by: Michael at February 5, 2006 02:33 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Nick's next book:
Nick's latest book:
"Future Shock for the web-apps era" -Fast Company
"Ominously prescient" -Kirkus Reviews
"Riveting stuff" -New York Post
Greatest hits
Avatars consume as much electricity as Brazilians
The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock's avatar
Flight of the wingless coffin fly
Other writing
The end of corporate computing
Nick's first book:
Order from Amazon
Visit book site