Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw

Editor’s note: unlike the rest of this site’s content that is directly related to class, I’ve cross posted this entry on the Center for Future Civic Media blog.

Today Google announced that they will slowly withdraw their search functionality from a censored China, or in their words:

We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

I’ve decided to amass together a collection of the most relevant and interesting points of view and facts coming out of today’s news.

A first point of interest is the actual bit.ly link itself, as bit.ly posts click statistics for links on their site. When I tweeted it today the clickthroughs were around 13,000, but I have no doubts that the number will reach 130,000 by tomorrow morning.

CNBC also has an interview with David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer discussing the details of today’s blogpost. Drummond explains that a number of gmail accounts were being accessed by third parties, Google suspects that these were not the result of hacking, but rather phishing scams or computer viruses. He encourages users to have the most updated operating systems and browsers.

Jonathan Zittrain argues

But [Google] drawing [the] line is both the right move and a brilliant one.  It helps realign Google’s business with its ethos, and masterfully recasts the firm in a place it will feel more comfortable: supporting the free and open dissemination of information rather than metering it out according to undesirable (and capricious) government standards.

Rebecca MacKinnon, who is currently an Open Society Fellow and co-founder of Global Voices and was previously CNN’s Beijing correspondent and Bureau Chief from 1998-2001 writes about reactions from people in China, including the censoring of Google’s announcement when translated to Chinese. She links to the Chinese Digital Times that is translating Chinese tweets to English. She reports that many are happy or are already able to circumvent censorship to use services such as Twitter in the first place, while others are disappointed and even mourning the loss of Google.

James Fallows, writes a blog for The Atlantic, explaining his support for China’s economic growth insofar as he does not see this as a threat to other countries,

but its government is on a path at the moment that courts resistance around the world. To [him], that is what Google’s decision signifies.

Tech Crunch’s Sarah Lacy brings up three advantages for Google leaving China:

1. Google’s business was not doing well in China

2. Google is ready to burn bridges

3. This is only going to be a trickier issue in the next decade.

She advocates that Yahoo, in leaving the country years ago facilitated a smarter business move.

The Wall Street Journal likens the anti-censorship movement to the GOOG’s “Don’t be evil” policy.

And Business Insider’s Silicon Valley Insider states that

In a note this evening, JPMorgan analyst Imran Khan estimates Google’s China revenue at around $600 million this year, with segment margins around 15% to 20%,

and in another post

Baidu shares are up 6.99% after hours to $413.52, while Google shares are down 1.13% to $583.80.

And as of September 2009, according to Softpedia, Baidu had 77% of the search market in China while Google.cn was at 12.7%. With both these facts, I find no surprise that searching “Baidu stock” will land you things like this:

@NewspaperGrl Bad news: Google may pull out of China – Good News: I have Baidu stock: http://bit.ly/4MAjhJ /cc via @zittrain @chrismessina

Imagethief explains

Google has taken the China corporate communications playbook, wrapped it in oily rags, doused it in gasoline and dropped a lit match on it. In China, foreign companies tend to be deferential to the authorities to the point of obsequiousness, in a way that you would almost certainly never encounter in the United States or Europe. Scan any foreign company’s China press releases and count the number of times you see the phrase, “commitment to China”.

Issac Mao, who has been a blogger in China since 2002 writes an open letter to Google’s founders, advocating for Google to stay in China and lauding anti-censorship practices. The post outlines three ideas for Google’s China relationship, to start a venture fund for cutting-edge tech sites and companies in China, to develop anti-censorship tools and to increase the appeal for Chinese Google Adsense users. What’s most interesting is that the post is dated “2007-02-09,” meaning that the post was written years before today.

This Friday our class met with Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member, Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel and Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer to discuss the future of Wikipedia.

Wiki markup was one of the first impediments to participation that came up. There is a huge dichotomy between users who participate and the general public that sees wikipedia as a read-only medium. Though intuitive to Wikipedians and users accustomed to searching online for answers to complex questions, the markup can be confusing and alienating to those unfamiliar with its syntax. A solution must come from the standpoint of social norms as well as a technical issues.

How can Wiki markup itself and the help pages not be a barrier to entry for participation? How can social norms around Wiki editing be changed?

West was curious why communities on Wikipedia have grown in certian areas and not others. One of the hopes of Ayers, an avid Wikipedia contributor herself was that more users feel comfortable with the Wiki platform.

How can participation be facilitated for all communities? When Wikipedia is able to solicit more contributors what complications will arise?

Godwin surprised the course (but perhaps not any fellow Wikipedians) by responding directly to students’ predictions on the course wiki.

Victoria: My prediction is that the speakers are going to be extolling the virtues of Wikipedia and explaining that although the site has gone under some transformations it is still a vibrant force. I would concede that I think it is. Most people I know still immediately turn to Wikipedia for a quick run down of a topic or an answer to a quick question. However, as time moves on the site is becoming less innovative and more standard. I would like to ask them about their understanding and personal experiences in trying to keep Wikipedia young.

It was refreshing to have a guest that looked at our course predictions and was able to interact with the class. Godwin responded knowingly that solutions to these problems were not only needed, but also being actively discussed within Wikimedia.

What are your thoughts on the future of Wikipedia? Do you contribute to it? How much do you use it in your daily life? What would cause you to participate in creating content?

Follow along here: http://freegovinfo.info/node/2877

and use the #lawgov hashtag on Twitter.