Google CEO Eric Schmidt said yesterday that censoring information about political and human rights expression in China was morally similar to Google's restrictions on hate speech in Germany.
Because Philipp Lenssen lives in Germany, I asked Philipp in a Google Blogoscoped
forum for his perspective on Google's policy of
active censorship. Philipp's response was eloquent and well reasoned.
Philipp's clear rationality stands in contrast to the
tortured logic of Google's rationale, especially as articulated by Schmidt. I've quoted liberally from Philipp's argument below, since there's no way I could say it better:
[begin quote]
I think it's a fuzzy issue. Censoring nazi sites is a little less evil than censoring human rights sites, and censoring human right sites is a little less evil than handing over email account information, and handing over email account information is a little less evil than jailing the dissident yourself. However, they're all acts of the same line of thought, and often set precedents for each other, and I oppose all of them. For example, the Google CEO now uses the previous self-censorship handling in Germany as moral precedent of some sort.
[...]
Don't burn books even if you think you burn the right books. And digital censorship is modern book burning. Google in Germany is "only" censoring the results to these sites, not the sites itself, but that's like saying they're only securing the area while someone else burns the books.
Often, these acts of cooperating with the gov't ruin more trust than any number like "only 2 dissidents" or "only 5% of searches" could express. If I know Yahoo Mail is cooperating with the Chinese gov't, I can't use it to voice my human rights concern over the Chinese gov't anymore, period – and that affects all mails. If I know some of the Yahoo search results are censored, I have reason to mistrust *any* Yahoo search results (and also be careful about what I'm searching for). If only 1 person is in jail for unjustified reasons, then everyone must be afraid to live and work in China and confront the Chinese gov't (or use western online tools whose leaders cooperate with the Chinese gov't). If I know that *some* morals don't need to be respected *some* of the time by *some* people... what keeps me from disrespecting all kinds of moral rules? That's the broken window phenomenon.
Google, Yahoo and others, by exposing their line of thought, also show us that they could do basically anything. E.g. their line of thought allows them to cooperate with Nazis. Their line of thought allows an image search to stop showing black people just because a segregationist gov't would ask them to ("we follow local laws" ... "we think showing at least some images helps spread the information better"). In the end it's always the same: such "evil" gov'ts need people to build their tools. The Nazis relied on IBM for parts of their work. If Einstein would have just followed local laws, instead of making sure he's preventing the Nazis from getting his technological inventions by going to the US, then this might be a different world today.
Now I don't believe Google is that bad – I just believe their arguments are logically flawed, and pretty much useless. But they might have become deaf to outside criticism... they've survived every kind of criticism so far (copyright issues with Google Books, Google News China omitting several sources, Gmail "privacy invasion" through ads, the acquisition of the Deja News usenet archive). But the results seem to prove them right, pragmatically speaking; everyone is still using Google, no law so far is making their decisions illegal, and news coverage of their China move dies down over time. As we can see, Eric Schmidt is now getting more and more self-assured over the decision.
[end quote]
