Slashdot Mirror
Dissecting Localized Google Censorship
carpe_noctem writes "Linuxsecurity.com has a link to a rather interesting story regarding Google's use of localized censorship. While not much information is given from the political side of why Google might be censoring information likely to annoy certain governments, it certainly isn't the first time Google has come under fire for censoring results on account of external pressures. Makes one wonder how many pages get filtered out around the world."
Not a government. Who cares if they choose to censor things in order to make their business stronger/more profitable? If they don't censor it, they'll get locked out of those countries or censored by a third party, which is even less likely to be accurate. Fight government censorship, that's the real problem.
Certainly Google is a private company that can do as it damn well pleases. Yet it operates an international scope with several countries having their own laws on censorship that they feel must be obeyed for whatever reason. As long as the government tells people about the censorship, there's less of an argument than when a government claims to respect free speech outright then decieves its own people in practice. Note the author's example of stormfront.org, a site that would test the boundaries between free speech and incitive speech.
Here in the US we have faced the same problem when Klan or other sites tried to get attention. If there are public decency laws are in place, how is it possible to both follow those laws (regardless of whether we think those laws are just or not) and provide free content? Should a whole country or region get a different search engine result based on its laws? In short, yes. To try and espouse American ideals to the planet doesn't work as the recent UN vote clearly shows. We don't have to agree with them, but they have a right to speak and vote regardless of what we think. Google has a responsibility as a multinational company to obey the laws of the countries it operates in, and given the legal right of people to sue internet companies according to the laws of their own country (Australia has a case like this), they damn well better learn what rules they need to play by.
It is somewhat loathsome that censorship be brought about, especially because the same rights used by the hatemongers to spread their intellectual bile is the same one I use to post here in disagreeance with their thoughts and, occasionally, the politics of the world at large. And anyone in the United States should also be guarding every right they have with vigilance given the blatant thirst for power of our current regime and their willingness to intrude on our rights and lives in the name of "security". Again, we should protect our rights here in the US and ensure that Google does the same by following the laws of other countries.
May the question of free speech and its legality in the face of "terrorism" never turn into a possible threat against the 1st amendment here in the US, lest we have to resort to the 2nd amendment to defend both...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
on an offtopic side-note about localized censorship, consider textbooks for high-schools. i used to have a neighbor who edited textbooks for a living. to my surprise, most history textbooks come with a basic core, and then about 30% of the material varies from state-to-state, mostly due to political or religious beliefs. this type of silent localized censorship is even more nefarious than Google, i think, especially when occuring in the US.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
So is forcing a private company to post information that it doesn't want to post your idea of 'freedom'?
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
The fact that a city successfully lobbied Google to remove a humor page from its index just because it appeared in a search for their city name is just sad. Granted, Google can do whatever the heck it wants with its own data; it's just bad mojo to censor something that was (supposedly) obviously satire. The interesting part in all this is that, having chosen to censor its index, one wonders if Google can remain a "common carrier" (for lack of a better term). I recall (but cannot for the life of me find the link) a case where an ISP was held liable for some objectionable newsgroups they carried because of their history of censoring groups they did not approve of. IIRC, the judge made it a point to say the ISP would not have been liable had they not censored other groups in the past. By chosing to censor information, they lost the right to hide behind a veil of "we're just a conduit".
Again, this comment would be much more informative if I could find the URL for that damn story ;)
Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
I think that these issues are important. Google is probably the most significant reference work in the world. It's made very fundamental changes in the ways people do research. news.google.com is already one of my main news sites -- I use it all the time.
So I think that these issues are very important.
I'm a huge google fan, both of the site and the people who run it. I think they're doing their best to sort through these issues. Government rules are a reality that has to be dealt with.
The thing that I think that google could be criticized for, in all of this, is a lack of transparency. I think they should explain, in detail, what they're doing and why, and make some effort to listen to people who disagree with their policies.
I'm not saying that they should open it up to a vote, or that they should do things that aren't in their company's best interests. Just that they should listen, and tell us what they're doing.
Google looms large in the world's conciousness, and it's getting bigger all the time. It would be an overstatement to say that leaving something out of google erases the fact from the world in an orwellian sense. But it does seem to me that leaving stuff out does take a step down that road.
I just wish that goggle indicated they were censoring the results with someting like "230 results removed due to government contols". People should know about censorship it shouldn't be hidden. Perhaps even display the match with a black line through the link (i.e. you can't read the link nor click on it but you are aware of what happened).
I understand that google thinks it has to do this. The US government can be pretty nasty regarding things like facilitating child porn. European governments can be nasty about political / religious viewpoints they don't agree with (though not as bad as the US regarding child porn). Non western governments can be far worse. Frankly I wish google had the guts to fight because I think they would win but the very least they can do is not cover up for the government.
The real problem is that they don't inform the users about the censoring. I've taken a look around Google, and so far without luck in finding the information - mayby they censor what they censor..
If Google openly tells the users what they censor, then the users have a choice - and like in China get more and more aware of the conditions they are living under (ok that was a wee bit idealistic).
I just wonder, why _Google_ thinks what they censor should be kept a secret.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No one has proposed "forcing" anything. What these people are doing is merely to inform. All they are saying is that Google does not behave in a way that they believe or may be led to believe. This is a tremendously important thing to do, whether or not it results in any changes, because of the role Google has in the internet community.
We should never blindly support any entity, corporate, religious, or governmental. These people are merely providing a view to what might otherwise go unseen.
It is both a value and the greatest risk introduced by the advent of the web, that now fringe ideas can be sought out and the relitively few indeviduals who share these ideas can congregate and cooperate to advance their ideals in a society where those ideas are in the extreme minority. In fact, you can now insulate yourself from reality by seeking out nerws sources and those of similar fringe ideoligies, and limiting your world view, by surrounding yourself with those who share your fringe ideals.
This allows the crackpots who were once spread thinly throughout society, to become a meaningful force within modern social styructures.
Google has positioned itself as one of the few gatekeepers between the majority of internet users, and these fringe ideas. It is neither right nor wrong, that the management of google has deemed certain material, not worthy of delivery to users. Google as a corporation has a mission; to deliver the greatest shareholder value. Google management has decided that in order to deliver the greatest value, they must provide results which the greatest number of users, find acceptable, appealing, or otherwise paletteable. They're in this to make money, not as a public service. That's what the Mozilla Directory Project is for.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Google's role in society is no longer one of profit, it has become the navigator for millions of people to access free information. With great power comes great responsiblity.
This is fundamentally wrong. If it is a public tool, it should be paid for by tax dollars and be institutionalized by the government.
Google is a company, and that is black and white. Regardless of ideological ideas of what a public tool should or should not do, it is there business what they do. People are not obligated to use Google, and Google is not obligated in any way to humor certain peoples thoughts on what is moral and just.
Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.
At the sacrifice of their business? At which point does this free flow of information end? If someone posts a video of you doing something embarassing, is it your right to censor or attempt to? There is no moral obligation for any company to anybody outside of that company.
It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.
Take issue with the governments that require censorship, not with a tool that tries to reach as many people as possible. It's better that Google is available in China, even if it is censored, than if they don't have access to google at all.
You are fighting the wrong people here. You are shooting the messenger.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
And I don't think removing one page to appease the citizens of one village in the UK is that big of a deal.
Schnapple
Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information
I just can't agree with this. Unlike other replies, I do agree that it damages the exchange of ideas...sure they can still go to the site, but if they depend on google to find those sources, they will not know they exist. But if some government wants to ban a site that teaches you something rediculous, like how to abuse your children and not leave marks so you don't get caught, wouldn't it be moral and ethical to block such a site. Moral and ethical does not always equal freedom of speech and ideas. If a government decides somethings is harmful to its people, they will try to stop this information. Not everyone believes in absolute free speech as most (some?) people do in slashdot (and isn't freedom of speech allowing for people who believe freedom of speech is dangerous?). In any case, I think if it is a problem, it is up to the people of Germany to stand up against this policy. If the German people approve of this censoring, then we really have no right to tell them they are wrong.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
I am not so upset that Google is caving in to some of these demands. They cannot afford to fight off rich powerful corporations like the Church of Scientology and Microsoft. Even if these lawsuites are spurrious, they simply can't afford to fight all of them. In that regard, we need legislation to allow the quick and efficient dismissal of bullshit lawsuites like this.
Google should be completely transparent if they remove information. They should create a section called "Censored Sites" and list what sites (in text-format) these nazi's have asked them to not link to, with the threat of a lawsuite to back up. This way, everyone knows what draconian nazi's are forcing Google's hand by threatening them with impeding lawsuites. It should be like a news section, and they should post the following:
(1) Who (what corp., country, business, etc) requested what to be removed.
(2) Their letter requesting such.
(3) What Google decided to do about it.
(4) Why they decided to do such.
(5) The address and e-mail of the offending corporation, so we can let them know what we think.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
As I see it, Google is doing exactly what it should be doing. The company has an obligation to obey laws in each country about what material is and is not legal to view. Not every country has the same views about whether censorship is acceptable, and what things should be censored if it is. Google could get in very serious trouble if it chose to show people things that their governments have decided that they shouldn't have access to. At the same time, Google does seem to be trying hard to do the least damage it can in the process. Specifically, it's not censoring material everywhere just because it's considered objectionable in one place. Americans can still see Holocause denial sites (if they have some bizarre desire to do so), Germans can see Chinese dissident sites, etc.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Let's try THIS analogy:
A single company publishes phonebooks in every country in the world.
Some country, x, makes either certain content or specific phone numbers illegal.
The company then goes out of it's way to obey local laws by presenting different information based on your geographic location, so as not to have their entire service banned in that country.
Google is not filtering "unpopular views" in the case of Germany. They are filtering "illegal views." You'll notice they don't do any content filtering in the US, aside from the filtering done to provide "better" results (ie. filtering out searchking).
Germany is fucked up. So is most of the world. People in the US don't realize how lucky they are to have a Constitution giving them protected freedoms. Europeans have no such luck.
Most European government's constitution's read:
"You have permission to do specific activities x, y and z until such a time that the government chooses to pass laws restricting said activities."
Scary shit.
Justin Dubs
Google is/may become a monopoly in the search space. As a previous discussion noted, it has entered into our common vocabulary. In such a situation, where do the rights of a private organization end, and that of the public good begin?
For instance, if PacBell (substitute your local phone company here) stops carrying calls over its physical network that use other long distance services, or Microsoft tries putting roadblocks for third party applications on its platform .. umm- scratch the last one.