RConversation

Global Online Freedom Act: needs improvement.

Republican Congressman Chris Smith has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today calling for passage of the Global Online Freedom Act, which was introduced in the House of Representatives after a full day of hearings on February 15th.  I agree with Smith’s general point:

We are at a point where leading U.S. companies like Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft have compromised both the integrity of their product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens in order to compete in the world's largest market. The ability to communicate openly is the key to unlock the doors to freedom for those who cannot feel its touch, and IT companies can help to provide that. As Americans, we need to empower those who seek the path of democracy, not stifle their ability to speak out.

I also agree with parts of the proposed legislation: provisions that would forbid storage of user data on servers inside China, would make it illegal to sell equipment or services to law enforcement agencies in countries like China and would enable victims of Yahoo!'s police collaboration to sue Yahoo! in US court. These things all make sense.

But. A big “but.”

There are some other things in the bill as it currently stands that I disagree with and which I discussed in an article I wrote for The Nation. The act would require US Internet companies to hand over all lists of forbidden words provided to them by "any foreign official of an Internet-restricting country" (as defined by the US State Department) to a specially created US government office. It would also require companies to report all content deleted or blocked at the request of the host government to the same government office. This would put US companies in a tough position in foreign markets if they are perceived to be US government stooges - which this Act would in effect require them to be. The Act would also result in US companies handing over Chinese user information to the US government. Why would we ask companies to hand over Chinese user information to the US government, when many Americans don't trust our own government with our own personal data? Aren't we better off setting global standards to protect all users from all governments everywhere?

We should not allow American companies to act in ways that contradict fundamental American values. But we must act in a way that respects the rights of people in other countries as much as we respect our own rights. The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 is the beginning of a conversation about what needs to be done. But in its current form, it should not be the last word.

Other free-speech advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have similar concerns. I have a lot of respect for friends like Julien Pain at Reporters Without Borders who says he is going to lobby to get the GOFA passed. But I would frankly rather see a dialogue between congress, the affected companies, human rights groups, and free speech activists to come up with something that won’t be counterproductive in a number of important ways.

Les Blogs: technology and democracy

Here is my favorite image of the Les Blogs conference: this cartoon drawn on the back of my namecard by Hugh McLeod.  I have enjoyed his blog tremendously since I discovered it a year and a half ago or so. He nails it on the head when it comes to the future of marketing, micro-branding and personal branding. During his panel Tuesday he talked about how blogs enable us to free our personal image or "personal brand" from the identities of the companies and organizations we work for. As he put it: "We have these identities that transcend our jobs, which is very good because most jobs suck." 

David Sifry of Technorati said: "The internet is starting to be used in a new way and we need a new metaphor to better describe the way we use the web."

He described the web as no longer a succession of pages but a "conversation stream" or "event stream," enabling individuals and companies to enter into a more direct conversation. "In next 10 years the whole idea of the consumer economy will shift and we'll be calling it a participant economy." He also believes a new model of civics will emerge as a result of this transformation. Citizens' media, says Salim Ismail of PubSub, sitting on his right, makes it "impossible for corporations to manage their message." 

They're right. Companies - and increasingly I believe governments - can no longer control their messages. Their employees' reputations and identities (and thus market value) are less dependent on employers. Citizens' identities may also become more independent of their governments' national "branding."

Ben Hammersley gave a very provocative talk about the future. (Provocative not only because he was wearing a kilt!) He believes "We are on the tipping point of the next step in the evolution of human society." Ethan blogged an excellent summary of it here.

I must admit, I don't believe that technology - or anything else for that matter - is going to enable human beings to transcend our fundamentally flawed human nature. I tend to feel that we're better off if we plan for the future based on the assumption that human capacity for evil and stupidity will remain pretty much constant, and then make sure to build in the requisite institutions and systems to protect ourselves from the dark side of our own nature.

Yat Siu of Outblaze made some really good points about how a lot of these conferences make assumptions about the future of technology based on the assumption that it will emerge from a Western cultural context - which is a wrong assumption, given that soon the largest group of internet users in the world will be Chinese, and given that Northeast Asian companies and consumers will increasingly be driving information technologies of the future.
In our Monday afternoon media & blogging panel, both Ethan and I raised the point that you can't assume that a more democratic society will result just because blogs have emerged. Censorship technologies can be baked into the software and hardware, and people in some online communities exercise a great deal of self-censorship. You also see waves of nationalism and polarization emerging in some blogospheres, which can lead to tyrannies of the majority and herd mentalities -  which are not particularly conducive to democratic discourse.

Yes, I agree that information technology and citizens' media are powerful tools - that's why I quit my job in TV to build an international blogging community. World-changing things can be done with these tools. But I believe that truly world-changing solutions can only be the result of concerted human efforts to be less selfish and evil. We cannot sit back and expect technology to do our work for us. If we want the world to be better, we must reach out to other human beings outside our immediate comfortable circle. And human effort - assisted by technology - is ultimately what Global Voices is all about.

(final photo by "altaide")