NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Pakistan, YouTube, Google, and No Simple Answers
The Pakistan/YouTube story brings together a number of different
elements that touch on Network Neutrality (and what I might call
"content neutrality") in various ways that are useful to examine
further, even though we may stray away from the central network
neutrality focus momentarily.
First, I'll offer a comment regarding my use of the term "religious
zealots" relating to take-down demands at YouTube. No quibbling --
as far as I'm concerned anyone who wishes to block the entire planet
from seeing material that one religious group feels is distasteful or
blasphemous (for religious reasons) is a zealot. It makes no
difference if we're talking about any of the world's major religions
or the "Slackers" at the Church of the SubGenius -- the same
standards apply.
Now, if a country wants to *try* block their population from certain
Internet materials, that may be their right, however ineffective
such efforts will ultimately be
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000229.html ).
But when those efforts impinge on the rights and access of everyone
else, we enter an unacceptable situation. In the case of Pakistan's
disrupting YouTube routes globally, I'm perfectly willing to accept
the explanation that this was a combination of error and fundamental
routing vulnerabilities. The latter in particular is a topic for
another time.
But the fact that Google reportedly pulled down the video in
question that triggered this entire situation is of much greater
concern. The fact that this video could be seen as violating
particular YouTube rules is notable, but questions of the equality,
"neutrality," and global impact of those very rules are of even more
import.
I appreciate -- in fact I applaud -- the need for Google to be
responsible with their sites' contents. But we repeatedly see a
double standard in this regard that is increasingly difficult to
fathom.
If you show up at Google with a DMCA take down order, you generally
get a rapid response. This is understandable -- DMCA is the law --
at least at the moment.
But it's far less clear why Google should permit religious demands
to (attempt) to censor material globally as reportedly occurred in
this situation. Pakistan's laws and religious sensibilities don't
trump the rest of the world's rights, nor should any country have a
veto over what other countries' populations can access.
This situation is made all the more perplexing by Google's routine
refusal in most cases to act in instances of *individuals* being
defamed or otherwise damaged by Web sites that prosper solely on the
basis of high-ranking Google search results. I've made a number of
past proposals relating to this area (e.g. "Search Engine Dispute
Notifications: Request For Comments" -
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000253.html and linked items), plus
I've previously discussed how Google has made an initial step in a
relevant positive direction relating to news sources ("Google Takes
First Key Step Toward Search Dispute Resolutions" -
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000267.html ).
However, for the vast majority of conventional (non-news source) Web
pages in Google search result listings, concerned parties have no
effective mechanism to comment or otherwise flag results to indicate
that serious disputes are in progress, so they effectively have no
recourse.
This then is the dichotomy. Certain classes of content and
complaints result in action from Google, and others simply do not.
What's particularly depressing about this situation is that -- in my
opinion -- Google appreciates that this is a problem, but feels that
they can't risk really dealing with it. In fact, I've
discussed some of these issues face-to-face with various Google
folks (especially in the context of my "Urgent Call For a Google
At-Large Public Ombudsman" -
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000251.html ) and I've come away
with the strong impression that they felt both sympathetic and
impotent in this instance.
Google impotent? A contradiction in terms? Not really. My sense is
that they are very concerned that if they opened the door broadly to
these kinds of complaints, they'd be flooded with aggrieved parties
and be essentially paralyzed as a result.
I definitely do agree that there are serious scalability issues that
impact on these matters, but I don't feel that these issues present
intractable problems, and I don't consider the alternative of the
status quo to be acceptable.
However, these are all of course decisions for Google to make, and my
effective influence over events up at the Googleplex is nil.
What this all boils down to is that these are complex situations with
few clear-cut, off-the-shelf answers waiting to be plucked. But we
can try to work our way through them to the best of our abilities,
and ideally with as little animosity and as much good will as possible.
--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator