Google’s public confrontation with the powers that be in the People’s Republic of China are slowly cooling down, though the current lull may be nothing short of the calm before the storm. While attempts to examine the situation from both the perspective of Google and China have been attempted, the truth is that the situation is so complex that it really takes a far more context to understand every nuance of the problem. Not many have the patience to attain such knowledge and understanding, primarily because they may not necessarily see how the situation between Google and China impacts them.
The Internet is Becoming History
Never before has there been such a rich medium for sharing everything from earth-changing events to seemingly trivial happenings. Data transmission is virtually instantaneous, and global broadband penetration ensures that rich media is available in a significant portion of the world, but that delivery of data is inherently threatened when governments limit what can and cannot be done on the Internet. Such limitations ruins the ability of the Internet to serve as a living source for history that is virtually up-to-the second. Instead, what citizens get is a limited and distorted view of the facts that is probably more severe than what American newspapers and so-called news networks have been offering.
While Wikipedia has been the source of many jokes and public jabs regarding limitations and accuracy, those jokes may not seem so funny when governments are able to distort facts in similar manners. Why is it that making a joke at Wikipedia’s expense is acceptable but nobody would laugh when the subject of governments censoring out their own egregious human rights violations is not? They are both gross distortions of history, and the Internet offers humanity the very first multi-perspective living history book. No longer can history be written only by victors, now it can be written by everyone, which ensures multiple points of view, but such a future is in serious jeopardy if governments can dictate what is and is not permissible in terms of search results.
It would certainly seem reasonable to ask what the point would be in this argument, but one only has to look at the so-called minorities in America to find their answers. Thanksgiving Day is often taught to school children with a very revisionist slant, and the truth is rarely spoken. The American Civil War is rarely discussed in practical terms, but instead is used in modern textbooks as a culture’s way to assuage its shameful acceptance of slavery for so long. These, and many other, falsehoods have probably been contributing factors to poor race relations within our own country for far too long, and yet they all come from that age old tradition that the powers that be get to write and/or approve the history books that are taught in schools. The Internet has done away with this limitation, allowing minds to learn from nearly countless sources. Not all of those sources are factually sound, but the idea of multiple perspectives is sorely lacking in an increasingly polarized culture.
In short, anyone with an interest in seeing the world for what it is, based off of several perspectives rather than one should have a very keen interest in the situation developing between China and Google.
Drawing Lines in Quicksand
If the government can limit what can and cannot be found on the Internet in their country, where will the limits be drawn? The issue is complex to say the least. While some issues are more cut and dry than others, such as child pornography, others are far muddier and harder to come to even a general consensus on. Given that the Internet is a global tool that connections businesses, government bodies, individuals, agencies, and all manner of entities, who can make such choices? A 19 year old may not be a child in the U.S., but they may be elsewhere. Where are the lines drawn, and who can draw them?
China is in a unique position to help answer that because of a few key factors. First, the government is one of the prime investors in the communications infrastructure. In a capitalist society, most would agree that investors have a voice in many cases. In a communist culture, it is simply a given that the government has a voice in whatever affairs it sees fit to involve itself with. Being a combination of the two with a few unique twists, it would be hard to argue that the government should not have a say in what data goes in and out of its network. Unfortunately, the Chinese government is relatively famous for backing out of promises and agreements, typically after they have received some (or all) of the benefits promised to them as part of such an agreement. Broken promises regarding the 2008 Olympics and numerous human rights violations are clear examples of this behavior.
Thus, allowing China to draw the line may not be a great idea because it does not seem that the line is very firm. Google may not be the best organization to allow for line-drawing either, as the company’s completely open policy may not necessarily work in the real world. Instead, the line would almost have to be drawn by some International organization. Which organization could handle such a responsibility?
Everyone Loses When Lines Become Walls
It is no mystery that a great number of products are made in China, and China is working hard on becoming self-sufficient economically. That progress could be seriously hampered if Google and China decide to continue their conflict. Searches from inside China may not connect citizens and guests of China to the outside world, and the outside world may have restricted access looking in. Neither possible restriction serves the needs or wants of any party, nor the general populace of the world. Since China opened, the country has made impressive strides to do what it takes to join the international community. While there is still a great deal of progress left to make, China could very well be the poster-country for the ‘join the international community’ club. If China begins a backwards slide that makes relations with the rest of the world more difficult, countries such as Iran and North Korea may lose a measure of faith that the international community has much to offer them. In turn, this would potentially reduce the emphasis and value that rulers in such countries place on international participation.
Break Down the Walls
At this point the best course of action might be for China to take the high route and call for the formation of an international body that would oversee open Internet access as part of basic human rights. With the economic power of China and the political clout of major players in America behind such a group, conflicts like this might be a thing of the past and countries can begin adopting broadband en masse, seeing its true value as an economic and educational tool rather than an obligation to be monitored closely.
Bookmark and Promote!
Related Articles:
- None Found
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }