king ryan

And because, unlike Google, Baidu did not have objections to turning over the names of users to the Chinese government, it could run services that let Chinese citizens express themselves. Its bulletin boards promulgated discussion of popular cultural issues.

Steven Levy, “In the Plex”

I haven’t really been following the Twitter censorship drama this past week, mainly because I knew that what my friend Marc Hedlund calls “the magic 8 ball of Internet outrage” was about to select its next victim. But when Twitter announced that they had implemented the ability to “reactively withhold content from users in a specific country” I thought of the above quote, which made an impression on me.

One of the things that struck me as interesting about Google’s difficult and ultimately abortive adventure in China was that their goal of being an uncompromising force for free expression in the region ironically made them less able than their Chinese competitors to act as a vehicle for any kind of expression. I’d never argue, of course, that Internet companies should collaborate with oppressive regimes, and Google was probably wise to finally exit China entirely, but for Twitter to truly be a worldwide mass communication platform they’re going to need to acknowledge the reality of different standards of free speech around the world. The approach they’re using (e.g. notifying people when content is being withheld and why) seems nuanced and on the mark to me.

I think Google was naive in their approach to China, and perhaps a bit arrogant to think they would transform Chinese society through the power of the web and their own good intentions, but on the whole I still think the Internet is a force for free speech and transparency in the world. In my opinion, it’s better for Twitter to be available in a potentially compromised way in more sensitive parts of the world than for it to be restricted entirely.

(via buzz)

permalink