Having recently posted my personal reaction to the tiff between Google and China, the evolving global role of the company is uppermost in my mind (see: A Few Suggestions about Google's Long-Term China Strategy). I had been worried that most of the media savants were clueless about what had caused this disagreement until I read David Carr's recent column in the New York Times (see: Not Creating Content. Just Protecting It.). It's one of the most perceptive analyses about Google that I have read to-date. Below is an excerpt from it:
Should we be surprised that the biggest fight over freedom of expression in years involves Google, a company that produces algorithms rather than articles? Probably not. Google executives struck a blow for free speech in China last week when they announced they were moving their service to Hong Kong after a series of mounting conflicts with the government over the privacy of its users and the free flow of information. That would seem to put Google in league with newspapers, television news divisions and other outlets that look to protect information from government control. But no, Google insists, it is definitely not a media company....But regardless of how it defines itself, Google has come to grips with its role as both enabler and protector of the global exchange of information....By espousing traditional journalistic values like openness, transparency and access, the company is walking away from the largest Internet market on the planet in the hopes of putting pressure on China’s government....That’s not to say Google doesn’t see this as good business ultimately: the company wants consumers to believe its searches are free from commercial and political agendas....Google has shied away from the media label, and for good reason. Already, Italian courts have held three Google executives criminally liable in an invasion of privacy case over an offensive video on YouTube. Among other arguments, the courts held that because Google monitors and censors search results in China, it could be expected to observe community standards in Italy. Australia, South Korea and other countries are also looking to Google to exercise editorial control over its Web products....In China, Google and other Internet companies act as virtual publishers for millions of people using the Internet to connect with others and to question the excesses of their government. In a sense, Google is championing the rights of all the citizens of the Internet kingdom.
This article begins to address some of the key questions that we are facing in the internet era such as the following: What is a publisher? What is a virtual publisher? What is content? What is a media company? Should virtual publishers be required to pay for content? How does protecting content and providing access to it differ from publishing it? What is censorship? To what extent do western democracies practice censorship? Is content search on a global basis more important than the creation of the original information? To what extent does open internet search destabilize totalitarian countries like China?
China is only a very small portion of Google's advertising business today. Europe, on the other hand, provides a major component of its revenue stream and can only grow in the future. I had missed a key point about Google's reaction to China's demand that it censor its search functions on the basis of government requirements. If the company allowed itself to bow to the censorship demands of China, it would need to do likewise for democratic countries such as Italy, Australia, and South Korea. I had pointed out in my previous note that Google was actually pursuing its long-term strategic interests by pulling out of China. This idea now seems to be even more relevant. And in so doing, it is also providing a benefit to its internet search rivals that are currently cowering in the background.
Comments