Chinese blog censorship
From Rebecca MacKinnon at GlobalVoicesOnline.com:
Microsoft has launched a Chinese-language version of its Spaces blog hosting service, and guess what? Users are banned from using the word “democracy” and other politically sensitive words to label their blogs — although it does appear possible to use those words within blog posts, for now. (As noted in my interview with Isaac Mao, people who set up blogs under this service don’t have to register with the authorities because MSN is already obliging the government by policing their content.)
I understand the argument — Google’s, for example — that it’s better to provide limited access to Web services than no access. Of course, that argument happens to work out in favor of the companies’ commercial interests, so it’s tainted. But there’s also a point at which the compromises turn your software into an instrument of control. I don’t know where that point is but it should be making companies intensely uncomfortable.
Of course, about the control-obsessed, fear-based Chinese government there can be little ambiguity. [Technorati tags: china GlobalVoices microsoft RebeccaMacKinnon]
Here’s Scoble’s take. (And isn’t it most excellent that he’s out there talking for and to Microsoft?) Although he staunchly believes in free speech, he says he has “ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS forcing the Chinese into a position they don’t believe in.”
First, I agree that it’s important to understand the other country’s perspective. I have heard, on my few brief trips to China (I could say “Please,” “Thank you” and “No, I don’t want to buy a DVD,” so I am obviously an expert in Chinese politics) that during this difficult period, the Chinese people can’t afford to allow a few enemies of the people to spread their seductive lies. And I don’t believe free speech is an absolute right: I support laws against slander, perjury and even giving away genuine trade secrets. But I have also had the privilege of meeting Chinese people who have risked death by speaking freely. So, when Scoble talks about “the Chinese,” I want to know which Chinese he’s talking about. Every Chinese person? Or the Chinese government?
Second, if Microsoft had refused to compromise its software, it wouldn’t be forcing the Chinese government to do anything. It would be refusing to enable the Chinese government to impede free speech. (On the other hand, to be honest, I’d like Microsoft to take a stand on this in order to influence China, and influence can be taken as a type of force.)
Personally, I think there are times when we absolutely do not want to enable other governments to do whatever it is that they want to do. I would not have wanted my company to help enable Apartheid, and I won’t even go back to enabling the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s. My point is not that the Chinese government should be compared to this or that other regime but that I do not agree with Scoble’s idea that companies have no right to take moral stances against the policies of other governments. Whether this is one of those cases is a separate point; in fact, it’s point #1 above.
So, I agree with Scoble that we don’t want to go around thinking our values are the only values, forcing the rest of the world to act the way we think they ought. Excellent point. I even agree that there are times and places where free speech isn’t the highest value. And I don’t think it’s totally obvious what Microsoft ought to do in cases such as this. But I disagree with Scoble’s reasoning that takes the moral issue off the table. Instead, I think there needs to be vigorous, practical debate about whether this particular software compromise is acceptable. Reasonable people (like Scoble) may disagree on this question. But it is, for me, a question.
