As Google prepares potentially for a highly politicized exist of China, we’ll hear a lot more accusations on how closed China’s Internet is. The presumption of Google’s move would be that China’s Internet is closed while the rest of the world (in which Google still does business) is open.
Of course, anyone who has even remote experience with China’s internet (and Chinese society for that matter) will understand the Internet in China is amongst the most dynamic in the world, as well as amongst the most explosive and important.
China’s Internet is not closed in the sense that has been depicted in the West.
When the Chinese governments regulates political speech, it is done in the spirit of protecting the public order – similar to the way regulators in the West outlaws fraud, hate speech, child pornography, conspiracy, terrorist planning to protect the public. It’s not always about covering up corruption or protecting the powers of the elite – as is popularly depicted in the West. Political speech that are manipulative and that result in public unrest are seen by many in China as a type of fraud or hate speech.
As the Internet matures, as we move onto web 2.0, people are beginning to realize that the Internet – like everything else – should not be immune to regulation (see also this excellent article from Time). We may bicker about what should and what should not be regulated – or how things should be regulated – but the Internet is not about a carte blanche to do anything as one pleases. As is everywhere else in the world, Internet in China is not a free haven for illegal or illicit activities.
In theory, I’m all for as much freedom as possible. I suppose that if I want to conduct “hate speech” with my buddies – and we don’t hurt anyone doing so – we should be allowed the right to do so. If I want to enjoy child pornography – assuming it can be done in a way that does not hurt the children – I should be allowed to do so. If I want to perpetuate fraud – I should have the right to do so. The line between aggressive business dealings and fraud can sometimes be hard to draw anyways. Let the market deal with the likes of me.
But a society has values. The public has a right to public peace.
The U.S. Congress is currently considering a law “to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.” This includes giving the president the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and shut down the Internet as needed. Australia already has a pretty “intrusive” framework for censoring the Internet. So do India, South Korea, and it looks like France.
Here is a summary (though somewhat dated) of internet censorship laws and policy around the world.
My point here is not to say China is right, Google is wrong, but merely to point out that the issues are not black and white.
It is ultimately in the interest of the Chinese government to allow more dissent and political speech – especially in a way that is constructive, that propels the society to advance forward. The perspective of certain dissents can be very useful in checking corruption, for example (see my previous post as well as this excellent China daily article).
But China must walk a fine balance to make the most of the Internet. When properly harnessed, the Internet can be a great source for empowerment and democratization. Incorrectly managed, the Internet can degenerate into a breeding ground for crime, fraud, hate, terrorism, and other socially subversive activities.
I may not agree with what the Chinese government censors every time, but I do take issue with those who attack “Chinese censorship” as categorically unenlightened.
Allen says
I thought this op-ed in the China Daily sums up very well why Google has failed its duty to “do no evil.”
Allen says
This Time article on Google’s loss in Italy is another take on why the notion of doing no evil may lie in the eye of the beholder.
Allen says
Here is an article on Google’s recent tangle with the Australian government. Note that I’m not necessarily taking sides. I do think the performance of the Internet should be taken into account. However, I do side with the Australian government to the extent that the Internet is not a free haven for lawlessness. Relevant laws that apply to the real world of a society should apply to the Internet as well.
Geoff from the US says
What about stuff like this?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/280000-pro-china-astroturfers-are-running-amok-online.ars?comments=1#comments-bar
YinYang says
@Geoff
I think “astro-turfing” is a general phenomenon on the Internet as the article says, because unlike physical newspapers the audience can participate on a massive scale.
Regarding that specific 280,000 people, the article cited:
This 280,000 number is a ridiculous claim, because it is not practical. Here is ESWN’s rebuke on why it is not an “astro-turfer”: “Am I A 50 Cent Gang Member?”
If you do the homework and Google search “Bandurski 280000”, you’ll realize it is mainly only those with xenophobic attitudes against China paying credence to it.
But, on this idea of government propaganda, you should do some simple research on the U.S.:
1. How much the U.S. funds separatist groups around the world.
2. Look at the U.S. propaganda programs like Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, VOA, etc..
Btw, because the number of Chinese netizens are now bigger than the size of the U.S. population – and the fact that many of them can converse in English – they will be commenting in Western media articles to the extend comments are allowed.
Its common for people pro-China to be dismissed as having paid by the Chinese government.
The Western media has gone for far too long in spouting anti-China rhetoric, and thanks to the Internet, pro-China netizens are coming out in her defense. This is a new trend.
Finally, culturally the West distrusts governments in general, so this issue is only looked at from the most negative perspective. The Chinese people don’t see it the same way. Why not have a group of people on the Internet dedicated to squashing false rumors and proactively deal with other contents that are harmful to society?
r v says
In one sense, aren’t all Western media profiting from China bashing?
Then, aren’t all Western journalists being paid to make China look bad? AKA anti-China “astro-turfing”.
280,000 pro-China internet surfers?
wow, that would hardly make a dent in China (which currently has estimated 350 MILLION internet users), let alone the world wide web.
*on second thought, which Chinese government agency is paying? Because I have been accused of being on their payroll many times, without actually receiving any paychecks.
But seriously, as far as xenophobia goes, at least these “estimates” could shoot for a higher threat.
How about just make the allegation that every Chinese internet user is on the Chinese government’s payroll?!
r v says
I would add that MacKinnon’s report does not say that the 280,000 on the payroll appear online and comment using deceptive means.
Let’s be clear, there is nothing in the report that suggests that these 280,000 people try to pretend to be someone they are not.
If a Chinese ministry worker is paid to blog as part of his duty, how is that any different than Google’s chief lawyer David Drummond blogging about Google-China problem recently using his company’s PR lines?
So, no, the report does not say that there are 280,000 “Joe the Plumbers” in China.
But there are a lot of “Joe the Plumber” in US. (For those who do not know, Joe the Plumber came out commenting on the 2008 US presidential election. Then it came to known, he’s neither “Joe” nor a “plumber.”)
YinYang says
@ r v
Really interesting perspectives.
YinYang says
Back to Internet censorship. . . take a look at this New York Times “debate”: “Google or China: Who Has More to Lose?”
Out of these five panelists, all of them are pro-Google and anti-China on this debate. They even have a Chinese national who is pro-Google’s stance.
Everybody knows that the vast majority of Chinese people are supportive of the Chinese government on this issue. Why doesn’t New York Times (one of the most “reputable” media companies in the U.S.) put up one pro-Chinese government perspective?
It is certainly not a “debate.” Censorship? Propaganda?
r v says
The debate is about “censorship”, but also “ethics.”
I have no problem with a person or a business having an opinion about “censorship.” But there is much to be said about a person or a business’ “ethics” in conduct.
Google is at least capable of an opinion on “censorship,” but what is its “ethics”?
Having conducted its business for so many years in China, having accepted Chinese laws and regulations on “censorship”, now it makes an allegation and challenge them as unsuitable for its business “ethics”.
As a lawyer, I have a problem with that. David Drummond and the other attorneys in Google should also have a problem with that.
There is a fiduciary duty to the clients, so as the American Bar Association’s model rule of professional ethics say.
As a lawyer, I am taught that if I take a client, who turns out to be a total jerk or an immoral human being, I cannot turn my back on that client.
The alternative is, don’t take that client in the first place, or seek to withdraw (without causing the client harm).
And above all else, confidentiality for the client.
*Google’s problem is that it put itself into a position of conflict of interest between many parties.
(a problem that many large businesses have.)
But a business like Google could have easily foreseen that problem in the beginning.
It’s not like “censorship” rules in China changed much. Google knew what it was getting into, but chose to ignore the actual conflict of interests.
So the damage was done early on.
*Some applaud Google for its recent turn about.
I say nay.
It is nothing more than another violation of ethics to “save ethics”.
The public violation of confidentiality and fiduciary duties by Google saved nothing but its own PR image.
Dozens of large companies are forced to restructure their business around Google’s decision, costing internet users and economy time and money.
Was it all worth it?
**I sometimes wonder, how far will some “activists” go to “do no evil?”
If every US lawyer took up the Google code of “ethics,” how many accused will actually get a fair trial?
And this is the way Google will stand up for rights of others? By a mere bait and switch scam?
Allen says
A couple of interesting links explaining Google’s double-standard when it comes to Google’s censoring results around the world.
Sergey’s double standard
Google’s censorship in India
George Monser says
Allen,
Your article concerning free speech on the Web is very interesting. But the details I read in the media, like who did what to Google, and why Google responded as it did, seem murky and unproven to me. So I will only comment on the main principle: Freedom of speech, and government limitations on it. The US allows most things on the Web and other media, but not things like promulgating terrorism or paedophilia. The governments of China et al have their own lists of no-nos. That is as it should be. I think that in the last year, President Obama has changed our discourse with other countries – by not criticizing their free speech policies – I think he knows that criticism just poisons the air and improves nothing. I hope he will continue this policy. George
r v says
hear hear
Shawn says
Please don’t shut down the internet because if you do than thousands of people will hate the goverment, because they are internet lovers, i mean because someone might get a ipod for chirstmas but whats the use of it if you cant have internet(also all electronics that use internet). Kids won’t have as much fun at school, and mainly i thought this was a free country and we i juess used to have FREEDOM of SPEECH! People might commit susicide because they can’t live without internet because they think they have nothing to do, because they spent their life on internet
YinYang says
Eric X. Li, Venture capitalist in Shanghai; Chairman, Chunqiu Institute, arguing in complementary fashion to Allen’s article:
“Globalization 2.0: China’s Parallel Internet”
Posted: 1/20/12 12:04 AM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-x-li/china-internet_b_1217436.html
YinYang says
Google’s dominance itself will be controversy around the world. If a Muslim separatist group in India is searched on Google, does Google show a pro-separatist perspective at the top of its ranks or an anti-separatist perspective? How does Google decide who to side? Should the results be ranked by how the American public feels?
This issue will manifest itself in one form or another. For now, it looks like the Indian government is formally launching an anti-competitive investigation into Google’s practices in India.
From a business perspective, Google should respect local laws. Trying to dovetail U.S. foreign policy of exporting ‘values’ only undermines Google’s business. Google not having a server in China physically is a big drawback.
One of the company’s key strategy is search revenue through mobile, via it’s Android operating system. In China, without servers, it means Android based cell phones would be tweaked to use Baidu and other local company’s Internet services. Apple enjoys a less competitive Google.