EPIGONIC

China, Blogging, Censorship

Rebecca MacKinnon, Dave Weinberger and Robert Scoble provide a great public service today. MacKinnon first and most importantly with her post on Michael Anti (Zhao Jing), and Weinberger and Scoble with their follow posts to bring the issue more public attention (I saw it first on Weinberger this morning, and then again on scoble through memeorandum, leading ultimately to MacKinnon). These posts are evidence of how blogs can actually be good and useful and important (I've been a skeptic in the past; posts about important issues, written with authority and passion, like these three cause me to revisit that skepticism).

We don't know all of the specifics about this case, but I think the latter half of MacKinnon's post about her tests of Chinese language blogging tools is as troubling as this specific report about Michael Anti's blog. I wrote last fall about this issue more broadly, and have been surprised there was less reaction to Yahoo's actions last fall (and other companies, like Cisco, I might add).

I have some limited personal experience and opinion to bring to the dialog. When I headed up Real's international consumer business in 2002-04, I travelled often to China, and spent a lot of time talking with friends and colleagues there about the potential censorship of our services (it was clear the Chinese authorities would not let us bring in streams from CNN and BBC, for example). 

Whenever I broached the censorship topic, my young Chinese friends would tease me about my paternalistic ways, and never hesitated to remind me about my own government's alleged human rights abuses (our captives at Guantanamo Bay being exhibit A at the time). They would also tell me how it was easy to find Tianammen Square massacre video, or other anti-government video, on the Internet (none was so brazen as to actually show me), and not to worry so much about censorship. These were smart, thoughtful, independent, well-educated people, some of them "Sea Turtles" -- American citizens either Chinese born or of Chinese descent, returning to China -- who lived there full time and just didn't seem as worried as I was about the issue.

In the end, I didn't have to confront the ethical and moral issues personally -- I was let off the hook. Real decided not to invest as much in our efforts there as I wanted at that time, and the things we looked at were in music and games. It would be easy for me now to claim I would have made the right decision; I personally felt the powerful lure of that market, and understand why western firms are so intent on getting a beachhead there.

But ultimately, I do believe there are universal principles and human rights at stake, and freedom of speech is without a doubt one of them. While I personally understand the lure of the Chinese market, and appreciate the advice from my friends there not to behave paternalistically towards them, it's just wrong for us to use digital tools, technologies, and inventions we've created to help the Chinese government censor speech of individuals, especially political speech. We have export restrictions on many technologies, including most importantly armaments. Why not also make it illegal to export technologies that enable governments to censor the speech of their citizens?

I "get" that others will fill the void (perhaps Europeans, ever willing to court the Chinese, perhaps other Asian countries, perhaps even local Chinese companies). But isn't this an issue where we should be on the side of the people (generally, as a people and government), and not on the side of shareholders of Cisco, MSFT, YHOO, and maybe GOOG?

Truly a Pathetic Excuse

One of the more interesting and memorable (and, in retrospect, utterly depressing) moments at the Web2 conference last week occurred when John Battelle asked Terry Semel about Yahoo in China, and the recent case in which Yahoo turned over information to Chinese authorities about a Chinese journalist, Shi Tao, that led to his imprisonment for 10 years.

I listened carefully, and I am pretty sure that Semel's justification for this was: "We have to adhere to the laws of the countries in which we do business." That has been their consistent line of defense since early September.

It all seemed so reasonable, so sensible, so justifiable when he said it, even if there was a slight smell of bullshit about the claim. But as I've thought about it more, I am shocked and ashamed I didn't stand up and scream, and that others didn't either. This justification and kind of excuse is as outrageously offensive as the actual act.

A few years ago, a book came out about IBM's collaboration with the Nazis in the late 1930s; specifically, that IBM provided the punch card technology that enable the Nazi government to identify and catalog Jews living in Germany. I have still not read the book, but there is a good summary from a Business Week article from the time here.

I found, and still find, that discovery stunning, and the collaboration by IBM with the Nazis reprehensible and beyond justification. Of course, it may be unfair to equate that act with what Yahoo, Cisco and others are doing now; no one is claiming Chinese authorities are using US technology to engage in genocide. (Remember, though, that preceding regimes had no problem killing tens of millions of Chinese citizens).

But isn't it bad enough that Yahoo, Cisco and others are actively collaborating with and supporting the current Chinese government in their systematic, clear, unambiguous repression of basic human rights? Isn't that bad enough? Or, is imprisonment and repression not enough, and do they only cross the line when millions are killed as a result of their actions?

The argument (Semel made this, too) is that we may not like their laws, we may not like their human rights record, but it is better to engage than walk away. I spent two years traipsing through China while working for Real, and I actually buy the constructive engagement argument in general terms.

But I think you have to draw the line when you at active support for and cooperation with policies and programs that clearly violate human rights. Turning over Shi Tao's name was such a clear violation of human rights. Period. So is the provisioning of routers by Cisco to enable China and Myanmar to filter out speech those regimes don't like or approve.

I side with those beginning to boycott Yahoo! I'll stay away from their products from now on, including the beloved flickr and my yahoo and yahoo mail. And I hope the smart, sensitive and thoughtful folks who work at Yahoo that I've met will press on their bosses to do better. And maybe the famous bloggers will take a break from their pet causes and more parochial issues to devote  some time to this.