Read this article from Sunday's NYTimes magazine and comment on it. What are your thoughts? What do you think about the cool graphic headline? What troubles do you see with internet censorship in the future? There's lots this article covers, so dig in and share your thoughts.
Please post all thoughts by 8AM Thursday morning.
20 comments:
First of all, did they actually print that article? Because that would have taken up at least 3 pages of the NY Times. In any case:
Starting with the graphic headline, I got it, thought it was a cute idea, but then I wondered why they made it look so horribly pixelated. Anyone who uses google knows that its clean crisp text, not ugly robotic and chunky. Internet censorship is and will always be a tricky subject. The internet is a global tool, with anyone anywhere being able to access it. Because of this, it is impossible to create one set of internet "rules" regarding what someone can and cannot post. This is because there are countries in the world that span the entire spectrum from 100% free speech to 0% free speech. There is no finding a happy balance to satisfy all, because none are willing to concede. Sadly, I feel that internet companies are too focused on profits and not on morals. In my opinion, Google and other American based internet search companies should censor NOTHING on any of their international websites because they abide to American laws. If a country disagrees, it's their loss to not provide their citizens with the service of Google. It should be up to companies like China's Baidu to provide censored information instead of a panel of Google higher-ups who instead have to negotiate and bargain with countries about what they can and cannot allow to be searched for and posted (on youtube).
In response to your question, Josh: it's an article from the magazine, not the paper. The magazine articles tend to be way more in-depth and lengthy.
In terms of censorship...As a for-profit company, it is Google's prerogative to negotiate with or concede to any countries about its presence in foreign society. As Josh said, it is disheartening that profits could deter Google from the American moral standard of respecting free speech. But the fact is that the company is in business for money, not to promote American values to the rest of the world. I also think that it is ridiculous that the option to censor is in the hands of just a few people that are not even a part of the society they are censoring. I would hope that even in countries where free speech is not protected, censorship is treated as a more serious matter.
I am starting to believe, however, that arguments over censorship will eventually fade away as the internet becomes too vast to control...
I'm going to focus on what initially struck me when reading the article.
To prohibit hate speech but allow political speech is in my opinion extremely controversial. I agree that hate crimes, such as the use of racial slurs should be monitored on sites such as youtube yet hate in or of politics should be expressed as long as no racial slurs or other obvious infractions are involved. I strongly believe that expression must be protected ( as expressed in the article) and that it is sites such as Google and Youtube's job to maintain this. The internet was not made to be regulated by one site in one place. The internet should ensure equal rights and abilities to all surfers, and this should not be infringed upon.
Dealing with different people/countries special request is quite a balancing act in and of itself. I too believe that "one nations government shouldn't be able to set limits of speech for internet users worldwide," and continuing on from that the internet should not limit speech at all. Youtube and Google exist for a reason. Being a pragmatist I can understand why at times companies find it necessary to compromise their mission statements to get the job done, yet, certain companies such as googles actions are so significant that they have the potential to redefine the internet.
I am opposed to monopoly's of online mass media corporations for the same reasons that many people are opposed to television mass media corporations yet find this reality to be some what inevitable considering the direction the country is moving in.
Sorry the third post is from Amanda. :)
Google and Censorship
The graphic headline is clever, but I think its effectiveness is lessened by the fact that the article is online (rather that in print). This graphic goes well with the other pixilated-flag graphics sprinkled throughout the article, but the online version, which contains a slew of advertisements and random hyperlinks, spreads the graphics out and makes the connection less apparent.
The future of internet censorship seems to be very unstable. While nobody wants their children to be vulnerable to inappropriate content on the internet, controlling a nation’s access to “undesirable” information also creates unrealistic rules—rules that can be and are being broken. New technology, such as data havens or the ability to easily change DNS servers, allows users to “hack” the system and get what they want online. And in countries with heavy censorship such as China that go so far as to censor keywords such as “human rights” and “Taiwanese independence”, these techniques are currently being heavily relied on to prevent the Offenders from being tracked by government spies. As internet censorship continues to expand, the ways to get around it are going to advance as well; it seems that even with government censorship— like that of Turkey, India, or Thailand—the most determined users will still be able to find the content he is looking for with only a little technical know-how.
Google, along with the other search engines that are so profit-driven, has undoubtedly been put in a tough position. And like Josh, I do not believe that a different, “customized” Google.com should be created for each country; it contradicts its obligation as a “neutral free-speech tool.”
-Tiras
Never before in the history of humanity has such a wealth of information been so readily available to people all over the world. Having grown up in this information culture with the internet as an accepted part of my everyday life, I don't often stop to think about the significance of it.
Reading the article "Google's Gatekeepers" helped remind me that there is a corporation behind the search engine. I also found it interesting that Google had more issues with censorship after it acquired YouTube. I think this proves the power of images to invoke an intense emotional response.
However, the article also gave me confidence that, at least for the time being, Google is in very capable hands.
When faced with the issue of censorship, I think that the staff of Google aims for as little of it as possible and only when justified. For example, when the Turkish government requested that Google remove a slew of YouTube videos, Google censored only the YouTube videos that broke Turkish law and only in Turkey. Then when Turkey requested that this censorship be spread to the rest of the world, Google refused because as Turkish laws do not apply to other countries, the request was not justified.
Also, I disagree with Josh that countries should have their own companies that control internet censorship. I think that it is far better to have trustworthy executives such as Nicole Wong make decisions about censorships than it is for executives of companies in countries with limited free speech. I think this because Google is not as easily influenced by government pressure (including the US government, as Google executives proved by defying senator Lieberman) as a company based in a country that prohibits free speech.
The only instance described in the article where Google made a censorship that was unjustified was when they removed a YouTube video made by a conservative, Michelle Malkin, that criticized YouTube's lack of censorship, quite a paradoxical situation. I was also worried when the article explained that as the web continues to grow, it may be impossible to have a personalized response to every censorship request. This might lead to overarching censorship guidelines which would probably result in many sites or videos being unjustly removed from the internet.
This article spoke clearly to something that is becoming more and more evident with the advent of newer technology.
Old expectations and laws can not be expected to be upheld in the face of something like the internet. People who find something on YouTube that violates their community's norms can not reasonably expect a certain video to be taken off just for thier liking. The internet is a global tool, and as such there can not be a small minority advocating censorship of something that most people see nothing wrong with.
Of course, there are certain things that are immoral in every part of the world. In these cases it is understandable to have censorship. Complete free speech is just an ideal, not something that is necessarily beneficial to our society.
The difficulty lies of course in developing a standardized set of laws that will satisfy all regarding internet censorship. Eventually, though, we just need to learn to be more lineant in terms of censorship. This is a sacrifice that deserves to be made for a tool that is as valuable as the internet.
Furthermore, I highly commend this article for highlighting a topic that is not discussed enough. I had no idea that cases involving YouTube and Google in other countries were dealt with by such a small group. Informing the public is vital because it promotes involvement. We need to let those in charge know how we feel. It is only by doing this that we can enact a change.
-adam
To me, the headline was a good idea that was poorly made. It reminds me more of Legos than Google, but that's just me.
As for the issue of international censorship, I couldn't agree more with Josh's comment. I strongly believe in free speech, but I also understand that places that practice heavy censorship like Turkey or China don't. While I believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental right for all people, I don't think the international field will ever agree on what should be censored. However, seeing as how the most successful internet companies are American, I think that we have responsibility to support our own ideals, and not succumb to tyrannical laws in other countries. From the article similar conditions were presented by Internet scholar Lawrence Lessig, who conveyed that “during the heyday of Microsoft, people feared that the owners of the operating systems could leverage their monopolies to protect their own products against competitors.” This is what is happening with our powerhouse companies like Google and Youtube. To remain less controversial, they agree to censor their resources. I think not standing up for freedom of speech internationally is a mockery of American ideals and morality.
-Matt
My first reaction to the article was: WOW, I know so little about how the internet and internet companies work. I knew that Google owned YouTube but I had no idea that there were so many issues with various governments. I think it's crazy that Turkey wants the videos illegal in Turkey to be taken away from the whole world, I agree with Google's initial response that one governments laws cannot dictate the world's access.
I think it's really interesting to think about what would have happened had Yahoo not given into the Nazi case and set the precedent of censorship. Would we have eventually reached the same place we are today? And what would happen if Google just decided not to pay attention to the governments requests and got shut down in a ton of countries? I understand that not all videos are appropriate and violence and porn can find other outlets but I really had no idea how much control Google had over what I can find on the internet. It makes one realize that pretty much everything in this world has an owner and that owner has the power. But, like the article pointed out, really, if people stop trusting Google then it will cease to work.
My favorite part of the article was the end, where the fact that people who truly believe in free speech at Google won't be there forever. The internet will grow and grow and new companies will come up. New laws, both prohibiting sites and prohibiting that prohibition, will appear. I'm very curious to see if more countries in the world lean towards free speech and if the internet becomes to big to manage.
I kind of liked the graphic headline, but, like Josh, I felt that the pixelated nature of the headline took away from its authenticity a little bit. Maybe it was made that way as imagery for Google's shaky situation with regards to censorship, but I feel that authenticity would have made it a better graphic.
As for the article itself and the issue that lies at the heart of the article, I foresee many issues with regards to internet censorship. The first and most obvious problem is the fact that we are placing the responsibility of supplying information to billions of people in the hands of a few people in Mountain View. This idea is dangerous, and also goes against the principle of a democracy. I, for one, do not believe in monarchy, and I do not think such power should lie in three peoples' hands. That premise seems utterly ridiculous to me.
But if not Google, who gets to control the Internet? This is another issue because, technically speaking, no one company, nation, or group of nations "owns" the Internet. It is an internationally open piece of public domain. Who decides what the rules are? It's a question that I can't seem to come up with a good answer for, but something that will have to be addressed down the line. Because if it isn't, the integrity of the Internet will be thrown out the window.
However, I would also like to bring to light another point: was I the only one slightly disturbed by the fact that Yahoo had ultimate control over 90% of the IP addresses of French citizens? The fact that Google has records on every single person who has ever used Google search, Gmail, or any of their online services (via IP address)? The implications of corporations holding such vital, important, and personal data is scary? Let's say that I were being tried in a case for insider trading, and Google was subpoenaed by the court to give up any and all information that they had on me. Not only would they be able to give the Government a log of any Google searches I had ever made, they would also be able to provide the Government with any of my emails sent through Gmail or any documents I had written through Google Docs. While I am all for justice in its purest form, it is scary to think that anything you have ever done with a connection to Google on the internet could be used against you in court. Such information, in the wrong hands (and it would be foolish to believe the Government is comprised of angels), would be devastating to the personal rights of our citizens. Specifically, it brings up an issue with the Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens against unlawful search and seizure of private materials or information. Again, this issue, while not as significant as the idea of the integrity of the Internet as an information source, has the potential to become hugely important in the future.
In the end, I loved this article. It was a little long, but delved into all of the details and made sure the reader was at least informed of all sides of the argument (I thought that the writer gave Google the benefit of the doubt for the most part). But other than that, this article was really engaging and brings up a whole host of issues that are going to become really prevalent in the near future.
I also learned that I apparently cannot read the letters for the "Word Verification" to post on this blog. Third time's the charm.
I didn't get the headline until just now – the font is odd and didn't really translate to "google". I looked at the article in the magazine and the images weren;t any better. I still don't get the flags. Maybe it's just me, but I classify the graphics as a failure.
One thing the article brought up that I found most interesting was the difference between censoring to prevent something from being read or censoring to inhibit the writer/speaker/creator. Does stuff like the Nazi memorabilia the article discussed do anyone good? If not, then why does shouldn't it be censored? If it does, then shouldn't we be a little concerned? The internet is such a great worldwide forum for communication and expression, but I wonder if access to the internet is a human right, like clean water or health care. While yes, international censorship is not a good thing and we should advocate for free access to news throughout the world; if Turkey doesn't want its people to watch anti-Turk videos I think they have a right to censor.
The more alarming thing this article brought up for me was the power given to those jean and t-shirt-clad folks determining if videos are inappropriate. Deeming something "inappropriate" is so subjective, I cannot believe there are that many different people making what could be such major decisions. Like Anjuli said, I do not think this band of gatekeepers can control the entirety of the internet. It's scary to think we've created something we don't even know the extent of or how to control. Cue scary sci-fi music.
I thought that Rosen made a really strong point about the lack of regulation on the internet being so unique in the way it allows one both to access to information and the ability to distribute information and that with more sites determining what voices can be heard, the power is shifting (to some extent) from individuals to companies.
This article reminds me about an article I recently read about people starting Facebook groups that were pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia which allowed thousands of people struggling with these diseases to seek justification for what they were doing.
This brings up an interesting (and related, I think) debate about what qualifies as free speech and what kind of speech is harmful (such as speech that encourages harm of oneself or others.)
Here’s the link to the article in case anyone is curious. Some of the comments made after the article are kind of interesting as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6935768.stm
Another interesting part of this article was the part about Lieberman’s attempt to ban certain videos on YouTube. I had no idea that people in our own government also felt so strongly about some of YouTube’s content. After reading this, however, it makes sense that many governments (including our own) would want to have an influence over what YouTube allows to be posted.
On a completely unrelated note: It struck me as kind of odd that the Turkish government was blocking access to YouTube and yet they didn’t even know that YouTube was owned by Google. It just seems like something that the government would have researched.
I also liked the graphic headline. I thought it was unique and clever.
The Internet is part of our daily lives. We have to use it to do research for school or if we just want down time to browse. Like using it for e-mailing or going on Facebook. I don't really think about materials being censored. I think I sort of take it forgrated.
Internet is used worldwide. Without Internet it would almost be impossible to connect with other people on the other side of the world. Also, it would be difficult to know what is going on at various parts of the world.
As it is well known the internet is used as a place to voice opinions. That is why it is a complicated situation because of the issue of free speech. It goes into what is constitutional. Constitutionally everyone has free speech, but at the same time materials are being censored. It would be hard to have rules aganist what can be posted on blogs, websites, etc. The reason is everyone wants freedom. If there are rules it inhibits that freedom, and the United States is all about freedom. Therefore, if rules existed many people may not abide by them. Just like there are rules today that people go aganist.
It becomes a sticky situation when it comes to videos posted on YouTube because videos seem to rank on another level. It is not as simple as words. I think this is why the issue of censorship on YouTube has come up so much. More so than words written on blogs, websites, etc. It is also hard because different countries have different views on free speech. However, I feel that the country's government should not be in full control over what is censored.
Internet is starting to become a huge thing that everyone uses. So, like Anjuli said it may soon become to hard to control. However, I feel that the argument over what is okay to be on the Internet will always exist. I feel that there will always be leaders that want to control what is censored, and there will always be people who feel that censorship is going aganist their constitutional right.
I thought that the graphic headline was a interesting and effective way to basically give the subject and purpose of the article all through a picture. Text was not necessary, to illustrate that the article would discuss something pertaining to Google. To respond to Josh, the reason I thought that it was made so pixelated to suffest that Google is making a step backwards in terms of trying to progress, and further its empire.
Google has discredited much of its reputation through this act. Google is known as a place to search anything and everything and to be provided with all articles and pieces of information without censorship or prohibition. By censoring the internet in other countries what's to say that it won't make its way to the U.S. The First Amendment is being violated with ease by the Bush administration and has set an atmosphere where Freedom of Expression is subject to violation. Moral obligation tends to be lost in the world of big business, and although some may consider me to be naive for saying this, but I believe that it is Google's responsibility to uphold what the internet represents, and that is access to the unknown and forbidden.
i meant suggest not suffest (suffest is not a word)
In regards to the graphic headline, I completely agree with Josh. It is clever but would have been much more effective if it was executed in a way that was much more resemblant of a real Google search. However, I did like how the flags found throughout the article mirrored the headline graphic, much like the little scissor drop-caps in the article about losing limbs that we discussed in class.
I was very interested to read about people who work for Google and other internet companies who are dedicated to monitoring what appears on their sites and if it adheres to whatever rules of content may be in place. In many situations, it is probably clear if rules are broken (ex. if you post something with nudity on YouTube) and the decision to remove content could reasonably be made by one person. However, the whole concept of just a few people deciding whether certain posts are acceptable, taking into account where they are coming from and laws of other countries, is ridiculous.
The censorship that the governments of countries have over huge web-based companies also disgusts me. I fully understand the importance of eliminating obvious hate crime, pornography, extreme violence, etc. on the internet, but I think there should be little censorship beyond that. If companies continue to be compliant in removing content based on government wishes, soon there will be an unending torrent of demand for blocking a wide variety of media. Companies should be willing to sacrifice some user-ship to continue to provide freedom to the rest that remains.
Let's face it: Google is a monopoly. Sure, it's a benevolent monopoly, but at this point Google can do pretty much anything it wants to. The author of this article was wise to cover internet censorship – it's an issue that's just beginning to surface and isn't going away anytime soon.
I believe that free speech should be a universal right in our society and around the world. It is one of the founding principles of our country and, I think, one of the most important. In my mind, the right to free speech trumps all, even in cases of hate speech or national security. If I am convinced of anything, it is that censorship is ultimately useless. History has shown us, time and time again that there will always be a rebel, always a loophole... no censor is ever perfect and an imperfect censor is a failed one. If nothing else, censored material acquires a forbidden-fruit value that merely makes it more tantalizing if it does leak through the firewall.
I think the only effective weapon against free speech is speech itself.
Now, I'm not really that unsympathetic to Google. I remember when Thailand first blocked Youtube and when Turkey did the same. My first reaction was to think that Google should set an example and refuse to block specific content. Since then, I've begun to think that Google made the right decision by adhering to other countries' laws.
Ultimately, I find it interesting and also disturbing that we equate being taken off Google to being taken off the web completely. As convenient as Google is, there are plenty of ways to get around its restrictions. The incredible thing about the internet is if someone wants to post something, and someone else wants to read it, there will always be a way to do it. No amount of censorship can ever prevent this – there will always be anarchist hackers who can "stick it to the man" and keep speech free. The question is: should we trust hackers or corporations. I don't know the answer.
My first impression of this article was also one of shock at how little I know about what internet companies consist of. When thinking of an internet site I don't dwell on those who are behind maintaing it. The article opened my eyes to the amount of people involved in the censorship process of a site such as Youtube or Google.
I think that many people regard the internet as an unbaised third party and simply a means of expression with any attatched opinions. It seems that many people know to take what they read on the internet with a grain of salt. It is often said that, "you can put anything on the internet" which to a certain extent is true. However, this article shows that although the internet is a means of expression, there are people who work behind the scenes that are just as average as the rest of us.
The internet is not as unbiased as it seems. The people who create the sites have to contend with the fact that we are currently living in the age of globalization. Information that is available in the US is also available in virtually every other place in the world. Countries have their own guidelines on free speech and internet companies cannot be expected to find the happy medium between all of the regulations in the world.
Personally, I think that these companies should be willing to let a country ban sites such as Google or Youtube if it means protecting the freedom of speech of the public elsewhere. However, if this cuts down on profits, this seems unlikely. As the article said, the main goal of these companies is to spread their influence as far as possible and make as many people happy so as to have the greatest amount of bussiness. When it comes to censoring free speech on the internet the debate bassically boils down to the morals of the individuals behind the company.
I regard to the headline. It looks terrible online but it actually looks pretty good in the magazine. It would be better if it looked a little more like an actual Google search but it is pretty eye catching in print nonetheless.
On the issue of censorship, I believe that Google, as a company whose ultimate goal is to make money, should be able to censor material that is illegal in certain countries if the only other option is not having Google (or youtube) in that country. I think they have actually done a good job not caving to every demand from countries. For example, they held their ground on the Turkey issue when very few people would have missed those videos and they could have made more money.
I think Google should abide by the laws of foreign countries even though they are an American country. The ultimate goal should be making free speech legal worldwide but if that cannot happen, Google should do what it needs to to give users its services in some form. The governments of these countries really don't care or suffer when the citizens do not have Google so their is not really any pressure Google can exert. Also, just because we, as Americans, do not find something offensive does not mean others don't. There are things allowed in some countries that Americans would find very inappropriate and many would find it offensive if they were exported here under the argument that they are legal in their countries of origin. This is not a great example but prostitution is legal in countries such as Brazil but that does not mean the prostitutes from Brazil are legal in the U.S just because they are legal where they originated. Different societies have different norms and while I don't condone censoring free speech 99% of the time. Societies should be able to prohibit some things that have no value or intelligent argument and who's only point is to be offensive.
First, in response to the graphics of the article, I agree with Josh. The concept was there, but it looked like a super-nintendo version of the actual google logo. I don't know if it just appeared like that on the website but different in the actual magazine, or how it was a representation of how these censoring countries were stuck in the past, it didn't do it for me. Also on the graphics, what was the point of the similarly poorly illustrated flags on the sides. They seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever.
As far as the article goes, I really do not know what they should do. It's a Catch-22. If you don't censor, you lose business in a number of major countries. If you do, you go against the entire reason for the creation of youtube: to give people a place to post videos of any nature that expressed any ideas. From what I understand, I feel that they are doing the right thing so far in censoring videos that go against individual countries' laws. As shown by the Turks' refusal to comply, however, it may not work so well if other countries complain. Either way, Google and Youtube come out the bad guy.
Post a Comment