BLOGDIAL : We are the best

Google is Right on China

Progress Snapshot Release 2.5 January 2006

by James V. DeLong*

Google has agreed to submit to censorship of search results in exchange for operating in China.

The full scope of the censorship is a work in progress. Wired says: "To obtain the Chinese license, Google agreed to omit web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisions on guidance provided by Chinese government officials." (http://www.wired.com/) And C|Net News' Declan McCullagh's research found: "Many Web sites censored from Google's Chinese results touch on topics known to be unpopular with the Communist Party: the Tiananmen protest and massacre, political criticism in general, Tibet, Taiwan and Falun Gong (a growing movement that combines traditional Chinese breathing exercises with meditation and that's been renounced by the Chinese government as a cult). But others are more puzzling, such as jokes and alcohol." (http://news.com.com/)

As a result, Google is being roasted in the flames of an outraged Internet, accused of selling out its "Don't Be Evil" corporate birthright for a mess of Yuan. (http://www.usingenglish.com/)

About the only tepidly good word came from George Mason University economist Thomas Hazlett: "the terms of the agreement struck will push modern communications yet further in a basically authoritarian society. That triggers an underlying dynamic that ultimately, will undermine restrictions, allowing civil liberties -- not Chinese government censors -- to triumph." (http://news.ft.com/)

My view is considerably more sympathetic both to Google and to China and its leaders than is the Internet consensus.

The Chinese are undertaking simultaneously several of the most difficult tasks that any nation can attempt. They are loosening the grasp of an authoritarian regime; fostering rapid economic development; and evolving the proper form of government for a huge population of widely varying sophistication and skill in the technological age, bearing in mind the history and culture of China.

Were I a Chinese leader, I would be thinking along the following lines.

We have no model for this daring and difficult enterprise, even if we think that in the long-term we need some variation of a democratic state. The West's assumption that all we need do is ape it represents a presumption that would be amusing if the issue were not so serious, because democracy in the West is in serious jeopardy.

Look at Russia, where the recommended shock treatment approach was a disaster. The lesson may be that converting to a more capitalistic state requires economic loosening before political loosening -- perestroika before glasnost. The rule of law may have to start at the top and then extend downward, and be followed by a broad voting franchise only after the basics of industrial development are firmly in place. This was, after all, the pattern of the Western democracies. Magna Carta was for barons, not peasants.

A hard-eyed look at the West also reveals more question marks than answers.

Will Europe be democratic in 20 years? The EU structure cuts in the other direction. And the trend of European democracy is that the dependents on the government are electorally dominant, able to resist any reform of entitlements. The result, within a decade, will probably be a revolt of the young, who will see themselves as heavily taxed to maintain a welfare state that will not exist for them, and that allows them very limited opportunities to improve their lot. But the revolt cannot be electoral, precisely because the young are outnumbered, which means it must be anti-democratic. And probably nasty.

The U.S. as a democratic model? An interesting case, that's also full of problems. The nation has an increasing political class of government workers (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0601-29.pdf), better paid than the private sector by 50 percent, and capable of combining with other dependents to resist changes. It has increasing corruption among politicians of both parties, who have gerrymandered themselves into safe seats supported by massive pork, using public money to buy support from both interest groups and short-sighted corporations, and who are increasingly using campaign finance controls (http://www.opinionjournal.com/) to censor political opposition to this system.

From an economic point of view, the whole U.S. is turning into a massive anti-commons (http://papers.ssrn.com/), where everyone has veto power over every form of productive investment. It has shut down much of its manufacturing and extractive industries. A good symbol is that is a nation with an energy crisis that cannot even find a spot to build a refinery or an LNG terminal. It is now turning on even such innocuous industries as Wal-Mart, for heaven's sake!

Democracy in the U.S. was founded on a sophisticated interlayering of different types of governance in different situations, with the types appropriate to the decisions and interests involved. It is an irony of successful democracy that the whole must be subject to democratic control, but within this framework there must be many undemocratic decision processes, ranging from representative assemblies to market-driven businesses to law-bound adjudication.

The U.S. is increasingly in thrall to a kind of plebiscitary democracy, often by public opinion poll,a residue of the mindless 1960s, where every decision, right down to guilt or innocence in a criminal case, should be decided by vote.

Furthermore, the disturbing trends are getting worse, not better. The technologies of instantaneous communication are rendering the whole nation increasingly vulnerable to that fatal disease of democracy feared since the ancient Greeks -- demagoguery and rule by mass whim, a trend abetted by the glorification of the mass mind and by slogans about the superiority of the crowd. There is some wisdom in crowds, but "it's hard to aggregate the wisdom of the crowd without aggregating [its] madness as well." (http://radar.oreilly.com/)

Far from a model, the U.S. may be running on the fumes of its human capital of gifted and entrepreneurial people, but is far from clear that current trends will allow for the continuing replenishment of this class. And the nation is pinning a lot on high-tech, since it seems bent on suppressing other forms of economic activity.

But China has gifted and entrepreneurial people, too, and we also like high-tech while taking a more benign view of manufacturing and extraction. Our rise will increase the already severe future strains on the U.S. Will the U.S. be democratic in 50 years? History will tell.

So, what is a Chinese leader dedicated to the welfare of the people to do, given this incredible uncertainty, and the lack of convincing models? The wisest course seems to be: Focus on perestroika above glasnost. Move cautiously. Avoid any threat of losing control to demagoguery and mob rule, which inevitably ends in re-authoritarianism. Develop the rule of law before an extended franchise. And keep maneuvering in the fantastically complicated situation involving the modernists, the PLA, the old Mao-ists, the modern equivalent of regional warlords, the rising demands of the new economic classes, and the restlessness of the people who see that a better life is possible.

And given this Chinese view, what should Google do? Google should do what Google does, which is search engines. Google is not a Chinese leader, and it is not the role or duty of Google to tell China how to rule itself, or to tell the Chinese leader dedicated to the betterment of the people how to act, even when what the Chinese government does goes against the grain of American views of free speech.

In the end, search engines, even truncated ones, will contribute to the economic and political development of China, as Hazlett noted. The working out of this story will be one of the great tales of human history, for tragedy or triumph, depending on how it goes.

So Google should happily contribute to this effort, doing what it does, and avoiding the hubris of thinking it is responsible for China, or that it knows the answers. In this situation, good and evil are not self-evident categories.

Berkeley economist Brad DeLong is fond of saying (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/) that it is very important to the peace of the world that in 50 years school children in India and China are taught that the West did everything it could to help the economic development of these nations. Google should focus on being a lesson in these textbooks.

- This article appeared in TCS Daily on January 31, 2006.

* James V. DeLong is a Senior Fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C. This article represents his own opinions, which may not be shared by PFF, its staff, or it directors.

[...]

And there you have it. Everything that I have been saying for ages, paraphrased almost word for word. And I can tell you right now, that the bit above about Russia falling to bits was going to be in my essay below, but I left it out so as not to digress too far, and mis-characterize my beloved Russians as being entirely run by criminal gangs after their bold abandonment of the Soviet System.

Are you paying attention yet?

I'm getting worried about you...

Please.

You cannot support free speech and at the same time call people stupid for saying things just because they may offend THEM.

Firstly, 'cannot' is not in the vocabulary of a free man. I can say whatever I want, whatever sense it makes to anyone. That is the very core principle of free speech.

Secondly...

That's the point of free speech.

No. The 'point' of free speech is that you are free to say whatever you want, no matter if it makes sense to anyone or not and wether it is liked by anyone or not. This applies to everyone at all times, and not just to people we agree with. This is like journalists whining about free speech when it comes to journalists, but not when it comes to anyone else like the 'disgraced' 'historian' in gaol in Austria. Hmmmm its OK for JOURNALISTS to print somehting that causes massive economic disruption, the closure of embassies, threats to life and international discord, but if a revisoinist spouts his lies, he goes straight to gaol. Whatever you think of both these types of idiot, its clear that there is no free speech in much of civilized europe. If anyone caused this much disruption by any other means, they would be instantly arrested....but I digress.

Let THEM who are offended read other newspapers. Do Americans read the Tehran Mullahs Daily? I'm sure if they did they would find offence, so should the TMD not print what they like?

Who said that they should not print whatever they like? I said that they were STUPID for printing it, not that they should not have printed it, two very different things in this universe.

You are verging very close to appeasement.

That is, to use parliamentary language, a misstatement of fact; perhaps the honourable gentleman has just returned from a good dinner? (house of commons code for calling MPs drunk)

This is extraordinarily simple. The people who commissioned this nonsense have created a noose for their own necks. This is their absolute right. I am saying that they are insane for doing it. They have done these drawings for no purpose other than to insult, inflame and cause mayhem. It is their absolute right to do this. (repettion, drills it in they say...is it working?).

They have not done this as a part of any useful strategy to solve a problem, or as a part of anything good; it is pure, selfish nonsense, like a rascal in a playground putting a worm down the dress of a schoolgirl just to make her scream. Now not only do they have to pay individually, but their entire nation will pay the price of this pointless folly.

Not stepping into the mouth of a volcano cannot be characterized as 'appeasement', to use the straw man. This was not a critical story about some political betrayal, international scandal, important expose or world wide crisis issue; this was a totally manufactured act of provocation, which of course, they are entirely entitled to enngage in at any time they like. They cannot now supply a false apology and expect it all to go away. They knew full well what they were doing, and they excersised their rights. They engineered this to be the most inflamatory device imaginable; now their entire population has to pay. What they have done is selfish, reckless and stupid, on a personal level and on the level of having responsibility for the safety of their staff, and the wider population.

That editor, if he has children, will be scared shitless for the lives of his family now, and for what? What gain did he make by doing this, what point has he proved? This was not an act of bravery, it was not corageous, noble or worthy. What did he fix that was broken? We already know that these people will kill anyone that injures the name of their prophet; what revelation did he make that will change the world for the better? Of course, none of these things is a measure of the worth of a publication or an article, and if he did it only to increase circulation, that is totally legitimate and his absolute right, but was the increase in attention worth his own life, and the safety of his staff and countrymen?

I say that it is not worth it at all, and that these peope are not worthy of attention at all, and certainly, I would not put my own life and the life of my colleagues and family at risk for a pathetic PR stunt. We already know that the press can print anything they want...(unless the paper is under a D Notice, but thats OK because its 'US' right?) This stunt and the French one proved nothing. Nothing at all.

I was also troubled by the google.cn comments.
Bellyaching my arse.

The ability to see something from someone elses point of view is very important if you want to live in a world with diverse cultures and ideas. People like these of course, don't share this view, believing that they alone are correct, and that the beliefs of others are 'damaging'.

What the Chinese get up to is their own business, and no paternalist, colonianlist, imperialist running dog has the right to tell them how to eat their rice, or do anything else for that matter. That is the first point; the Chinese are able to fix their own problems in their own way, and in their own time. This is not like South Africa, where a bunch of 'we know best' colonist racisists were dominating the entire country with massive help from the outside; China is made up of and owned entirely by Chinese; a self contained self sustaining country who are well aware of their rich history, in control of their future and who don't need to be told anything by anyone.

Google understand that China is changing. They understand that it is possible that China will change beyond all recognition in a relatively short amount of time, in the same way that the UK has changed beyond all recognition into a police state right before our very eyes. When China changes for the better, Google wants to be there to provide its unfettered services to the most populous country on earth. This is entirely reasonable, and sensible, and preferable to Microsoft gaining number one status there.

No one is going to tell China what to do, ever. They are already moving to a market economy and relaxing many of their laws because they want to; just what kind of person desires to provoke them, to prod them through the bars of their cage like a naughty schoolboy at a zoo? All the people who whine about freedom for the Chinese; look what happened to Russia, who transitioned too quickly - they left a power vaccum that has caused the emergence of the doctrine of pre-emption and all the other unimaginable evils that are being done both abroad and in our own countries. Russia falling didn't spread freedom, its actually accellerated the emergence of the police state here and in the US.

Before you whine and cry about your pets (those poor wittle Chinese who can't think for themselvs and who need your help to solve their problems) in other countries, pay full attention to the Soviet style UK that is emerging right on your own dorrstep with your connivance. Don't waste your time bitching about Internet access in China, when your own telephone records, Internet activities and GSM location data are about to be collected by police and stored for decades. (and for americans, the FBI wanting backdoor access to ALL software, etc etc, phone tapping 'scandal' etc etc). And before you try and conflate blathering about Iran / Iraq with bitching about China, the former is something bad being done by imperialist running dogs and their somnabulistic sheeple populations to another country and the latter is one country minding its own business, whatever that is - something that everyone should emulate for a more quiet and peaceful world.

Google is doing precisely this. They are resisting uncle sham's demands for access to thier database of search records. Guess what, M$ and many others gave in immediately. Google are doing what everyone should do; mind their own business, make sure that their own country is the way that it should be BEFORE trying to tell someone else how to run thiers, or superimposing thier own personal anglo belief system on people who have absolutely nothing to do with them.

Yay Google!
DOWN with colonialism!
DEATH to the imperialist running dogs and their lackeys!
DOWN with western poison medicine! YAY Accupuncture! YAY Chinese Herbalism!

Mali farmers reject GM crops as attack on their way of life

Farmers in Mali, the fourth poorest country in the world, have told their government they do not want to see genetically modified crops being grown on their land, after Africa's first "farmers' jury" debated the issue.

Their verdict comes as the Mali government decides whether to allow trials of genetically modified crops to begin in the country.

During the five-day meeting in Sikasso, in the south of Mali, where two thirds of the country's cotton is produced, farmers heard arguments for and against the introduction of GM technology.

...

Mourad Abdennadher, west Africa regulatory manager for Monsanto, one of the main biotech companies, said Mali did not have the legal framework to cope with GM technology. "We cannot go into a country unless there are clear biotech regulations, covering matters of bio safety, and of how trials should be conducted and presented. Mali has none of these," he said.

Translation: None of the local councils are in our pockets and there are no regulations that allow us to slip around unnoticed until it's too late.

Way to go, Mali!

Newspaper, Magazine and Book Publishers Organizations to Address Search Engine Practices

Mali farmers reject GM crops as attack on their way of life