[governance] FW: Google Reverses Content Policy Prohibiting Adult Content On Blogger Platform

Fri Feb 27 14:46:07 EST 2015

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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).  

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

M

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: February 27, 2015 8:14 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.orgonli
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.orgonli> 
Subject: 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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150227/31192c62/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t