archives

The original appearance of this entry was in Danny Weitzner - Open Internet Policy

Among the many comments on Google’s recent decision to give the Chinese government editorial control (aka censorship) over google.cn, is a thoughtful column by Sebastian Mallaby, “Google and My Red Flag” (Washington Post 30 January 2006). The situation that Google finds itself in is, of course nothing new for media companies. About five years ago a cable/satellite firms such as Fox/SkyTV had a similar set of troubles when trying to launch a service in China and only got government permission to operate after agreeing to limit programming based on government requirements:

We won’t do programs that are offensive in China,” said Wang Yukui, a Beijing-based spokesman for News Corp….That stance is in keeping with Star TV’s regional policy of not broadcasting programs that are unacceptable to local audiences, he said…. In 1994, the Star network removed the BBC’s international news from its service because a programme critical of late leader Mao Zedong offended the authorities.

So Google really has the same problem — they need permission to do business in China. Mallaby worries at the front about whether Google is acting ethically by complying with government censorship requirements. But then he makes an extraordinary statement:

The censored material would not have reached China without Google’s investment. (my emphasis)

Of course, on it’s face, this is wrong. The data being censorsed is already on the Web with or without Google. Google’s contribution is to help users find the data. That contribution has been invaluable for the Web, of course. But the relationship between search and censorship is complex. Mallaby goes on to say that Google’s decision to be complicit with censorship is balanced out by the fact that

Google has negotiated the right to disclose, at the bottom of its Chinese search results, whether information has been withheld — a disclosure that may prompt users to repeat their search using google.com instead of google.cn. Of course, the second search might be frustrated by Cisco’s routers. But disclosing censorship is half the battle. If people know they are being brainwashed, then they are not being brainwashed.

The value of the transparency offered depends critically on what information Google provides. For example, when a user presents google.cn with the search term ‘democracy’, what will the user see? Presumably the usual list of 100s or 1000s of links and then what? A flag at the bottom that says ’some results supressed.’? The power of Google’s caching and search history functions would allow Google to report a lot of detail about what search terms are blocked, what sites are blocked, how may users are denied access to particular resources, etc.

The big question for Google: how far will they be able to take transparency in service of freedom of expression? When will the transparency that’s offered as a substitute for the actual free flow of information be views as equally threatening to government interests, and thus have to be limited? In this sense, Google the business faces the same set of pressures as more traditional media companies like Fox. Whether they respond differently remains to be seen.