<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>So Google has very quickly, one could even say, almost at the speed of light reversed what was fairly clearly a not very well thought through decision to become a formal censor of the materials appearing on its blog platform. There was in the Internet space a great deal of comment mostly focusing on the arbitrariness, lack of consultation, lack of clear procedures and so on of the decision—not a lot arguing directly against censorship as such, but rather focussing on what Google’s actions meant and what it was telling us about “governance” in Google’s corner of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Clearly Google was listening (watching) and was probably quite flummoxed by what was transpiring. This was “their space” after all, they owned it and (as various folks mostly of the libertarian persuasion pointed out) they’ll censor if they want to… <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>But it doesn’t appear that it is quite “their space” or at least a large number of folks don’t consider it to be a space for which Google has (or should have) sole and arbitrary responsibility/control. Quite evidently many many folks consider themselves to have some degree of “citizenship” in online (cyber) space (or spaces such as Blogger if not Blogger itself) and they are not hesitant in expressing their opinions on how “their” (cyber)space should be governed and what rules should apply.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Notably, irrespective of the commercial interests that might be involved – it’s hard to see that the revenue lost (or gained) by Google’s original censorship intervention or its repeal are of any material significance to Google or that financial issues had much bearing on either decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Rather the decision(s) were almost certainly based on reputational, political and legal considerations—the initial decision likely being driven by concerns of being associated either reputationally or possibly legally with some quite dodgy blog-based content. While the reversal was quite likely based on larger questions of Google’s reputation/policy standing; notably with those concerned with the freedom of expression (and “Internet Freedom”) online issues that Google’s actions impacted and rather than those concerned with online pornography (pro or con). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>What Google probably came to realize fairly quickly, based on the feedback they received, was that they were potentially, at least, damaging their reputation among and association with the former group of Internet Freedom activists. This in turn could have very significant and quite unpredictable consequences down the line for its overall policy influence and ultimately the possibility of its finding the kind of policy allies that they will want as they move forward in the uncharted Internet regulatory/governance space (think about the recent FCC Net Neutrality decision process).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>This of course, is all very interesting but I think there are other even more interesting issues that can be drawn out from the debacle. Google can (and certainly will) be praised for its quick responsiveness to Internet based concerns. This will be seen (and correctly) as a victory for the Internet (and free speech) community. But I think what is most evident about this whole process is the risks and benefits of the kind of private law which Google is practicing and which many of the advocates of Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet see as being a desirable future for Internet (and Global) Governance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>If the initial decision by Google was arbitrary and non-transparent the second decision was equally arbitrary and non-transparent. Who/what precipitated the first decision and who/what precipitated the second—we will probably never know. The speed of the second decision suggests that the first decision may have been taken at a fairly low and “bureaucratic” level, while the second was taken at a rather more senior (even the most senior) and strategic management level. It might also be noted that the second decision was the kind of decision that a company “listening to its customers” would likely make as it is hard to imagine what type of “insider” or elite based influence might have been brought to bear on Google’s management in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>But what is most interesting I think is the capacity of a huge corporation to turn on a dime and bring in a quite significant policy decision one day and, with some but not numerically very significant opposition, reverse this decision, essentially overnight. This is policy making (or at least unmaking) in real time.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Now imagine this in the context of broader areas of Internet (or Global) governance. The complete lack of transparency at both ends—no idea who is involved in the decisions, what factors they are taking into consideration, who they are listening to (and not listening to), what internal processes of decision making are taking place. Further, how is Google perceiving it’s “accountability”—to the Internet Community (however defined)?, to the bottom line?, solely to its shareholders?, to its Washington policy interlocutors?, to its global policy interlocutors?, and what weight do they assign to each of these. Again impossible to know but necessary to know if anyone wants a regularized and predictable policy regime either for the privatized spaces in the Internet or the broader spheres of Internet Governance i.e. was the first decision a measured decision and the second a caprice, or is it the reverse and dare we give over control of our collective memory/indexing of all human knowledge to such a set of decision processes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>In the absence of some sort of formalized processes of accountability, transparency, representative (democratic) decision making it’s extremely hard to see that decision making in situations of monopoly or near monopoly as is the case in so many areas of Internet activity could arguably be left to the private sector or even to processes where there are unregulated processes of private sector influence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>There is in the Internet and particularly Internet Governance space the notion being circulated that somehow private corporations and particularly the major Internet corporations should have significant stake in the policy decisions which are beginning to pop up with increasing regularity (of which issues of censorship certainly are one). This particular episode is to my mind quite revealing of the limitations of that type of involvement given the way in which the policy decisions were made/unmade; imposed/suppressed; all without a publicly visible process and all in a matter of hours with no visible human intervention (or presence) at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'> Michael Gurstein [<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> February 27, 2015 8:14 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.orgonli">governance@lists.igcaucus.orgonli</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Google Reverses Content Policy Prohibiting Adult Content On Blogger Platform<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://consumerist.com/2015/02/27/google-reverses-content-policy-prohibiting-adult-content-on-blogger-platform/">http://consumerist.com/2015/02/27/google-reverses-content-policy-prohibiting-adult-content-on-blogger-platform/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>