Posts

This is a continuation of what was a minor point in a recent post.

Typically when I post about something I get off topic several times and deal with it by eventually bringing the discussion back to the original topic. In this case I wanted this point to stand on it's own. In fact that is a part two to this post which I'll link to here as soon as I post it.

First, I understand that this is an old story, in the whatever sense ongoing human rights violations can be considered old or somehow less worthy of discussion simply because they continue unabated. The fact is I've posted about this myself in the past. Why am I bringing it up again?

1. It's an important and unresolved issue that should continue to be discussed
2. The issue is important to the long term success of Google and Google is an important influence on the internet economy, which is in turn pretty important to much of the world
3. It's on my mind recently after writing this post about Google and YouTube

On with it then...

'Do no evil' is off the table. It's been over a year since Google decided to censor the Chinese language version of its search engine to satisfy the wishes of the Chinese government. Google's often quoted official statement is this:

While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information... is more inconsistent with our mission.

This is no more than a reductionist rationalization of what is in actual fact an indefensible position on Google's part.

First of all, it is complete nonsense that there will be no information available to China with or without Google. China is a huge market, simply too large to be ignored, and there is no doubt that some other search provider would step in to assume Google's dominant role in China - whether some home grown operation or another established search provider. China's own baidu.com is certainly capable of delivering search results consistent with the Chinese government's unique version of reality. Also, Yahoo has proven itself more than willing to prostrate itself to appease the Chinese government, as have Microsoft and many others.

As troubling as it might be for Google and it's investors to accept, there is nothing particularly special about Google's search offerings. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that Google hasn't had a tremendous impact. They certainly have done that. Futhermore, I would argue that Google is almost solely responsible the innovations in search that we all take for granted today. Google should rightfully be credited as the progenitor of 'modern search', by which I mean search as a platform, search as an economy, and indexed search as a service built into nearly every device imaginable. Furthermore, the promotion of search is hardly Google's only contribution.

What I am suggesting is that today, and largely because of Google efforts, there is nothing particularly or uniquely special about Google's brand of search. The Google brand itself of course is uniquely special. It is the Google brand not the search technology that has kept their stock price above $400 on average for more than a year now, despite bewildering and often unexpected moves and no small amount of potential crises. What is inconsistent with Google's mission is not 'providing no information', but not extending the brand into what will likely become one of the richest, if not the richest markets in the world. Google has done many questionable things in the past couple of years, but this decision stands out as a defining moment in the history of the still young company. Does Google stay loyal to the ethos that propelled it from research project to public company, or distance itself from those early principles. By choosing the latter, Google has set its future course.

Can they preserve their other values? I wouldn't bet on it.

Secondly, this is not simply a matter of withholding select information. By editing out unfavorable sites, Google is essentially tampering with its organic search results. The question that Google needs be answering is this, "Does it consider lack of information to be better or worse than the spread of misinformation?" Which of those two things is more inconsistent with Google's mission?

The fundamental idea behind Google's approach to search is that the most popular result is likely to be the most appropriate result. For example, if I want to know the date on which Abraham Lincoln was born, a heavily referenced site about Abraham Lincoln is more likely to contain correct information than just any random page that happens to have a date identified as the birthdate of Abraham Lincoln. Furthermore, if I put up a website saying that Abraham Lincoln was born in 1995, it's not likely that my deliberate misinformation will ever influence anyone searching for information about Abraham Lincoln through Google's search service. Of course, if I could bully Google into editing out all other sites that list Abraham Lincoln's birthday, then there's no reason for someone searching for that information through Google to doubt that Abraham Lincoln is 12 years old.

If you're a pitiful little person in China somewhere feeling like you're all alone in the belief that you're being unjustly treated by a repressive government, there's probably nothing more damning than the isolation of it, and nothing as encouraging as evidence that you're not alone in your beliefs. I can't imagine anything more evil than Google working in collaboration with the Chinese government to take from people whatever hope they might take from the knowledge that there is more to the world than the government's warped vision of it. Maybe that's not be 'The' definition of evil, but it seems like a definition of evil.

A couple of additional points about Google's censorship of 'organic' results in China:

This exchange comes from the [Sept 2004 PlayBoy interview with Google's founders] (http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.148c8.htm#1ovvc):

PLAYBOY: How did you respond when the Chinese government blocked Google because your search engine pointed to sites it forbade, including Falun Gong and pro-democracy websites?

BRIN: China actually shut us down a couple of times.

PLAYBOY: Did you negotiate with the Chinese government to unblock your site?

BRIN: No. There was enough popular demand in China for our services—information, commerce and so forth—that the government > re-enabled us.

So here is a case the of 'popular demand' influencing the Chinese government's actions. How much demand could there have been if people in China were unaware of the existence of Google and it's services? I'd guess not a lot. What's my point? The Chinese government will have a difficult time resisting both the pressure from it's own people and the influence of rest of the world. However, if it's the government and the rest of the world against the Chinese people... well I wouldn't bet on the Chinese people. If you ask me this is the worst aspect of capitalism. This drive to be competitive above all else including the preservation of the best ideals of humanity.

Finally, let's be clear about what situation. China is perfectly capable of blocking websites it believes are inappropriate. They have in fact been doing this long before Google's concessions.

The trouble is that it is more difficult, virtually impossible without seriously misusing the service, for China to remove search results outright. Altough China can prevent people within its borders from clicking on the links to content, it cannot prevent people from knowing that there is something that is being restricted.

In other words, China cannot hide its actions without the help of the rest of the world.

So while China might work alone to restrict access to information about personal freedoms and democracy, only with the help of companies like Google can the government hope to erase the influence of these ideas altogether.

Which is worse, the repressive actions of a relatively small group of people or the complicity of the rest of the world?

From the time when America was new and the ideals of individual freedom from repressive governmental rule were just beginning to blossom we have this quote from Thomas Paine - considered by Thomas Edison to be one of the country's greatest political thinkers and revered by Abraham Lincoln

I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. To me, who have not only refused offers, because I thought them improper, but have declined rewards I might with reputation have accepted, it is no wonder that meanness and imposition appear disgustful. Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)

I cannot imagine a more relevant quote. If Google itself could speak I'd hope it would echo these words. The actions of its caretakers certainly do not.