Amnesty International has released a report finger pointing the three US search engines (Google, MSN, Yahoo!) in their parts concerning the Chinese censorship. Apparently each search engine had more of a part than the US lawmakers thought.
Perhaps the US lawmakers should pay more attention to detail when passing laws and determining important issues. I find it hard to believe the lawmakers couldn't have found what AI found in their research if they'd only concerned themselves long enough to do so.
Undermining Freedom of Expression in China outlines the Chinese censorship roles of Google, Yahoo!, and MSN. Accordingly, each search engines violated its own corporate policies to persure the Chinese Internet market.
The Internet should promote free speech, not restrict it. We have to guard against the creation of two Internets -- one for expression and one for repression.
Executive Director Larry Cox of Amnesty International USA said at an AIUSA announcement made Friday.
Yahoo was caught in its own scandal when it provided information to the Chinese Internet authorities that lead to the arrest of two journals. After which Yahoo signed the "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry", an agreement to censor and deny access to information.
In contrast to the above action Yahoo made a public statement announcing:
We believe the Internet is built on openness, from information access to creative expression. We are committed to providing individuals with easy access to information and opportunities to openly communicate and exchange views and opinions.
Nice and contradictory.
To compound the above statement, Yahoo is the only search engine of the big three (Google, Yahoo, MSN) to continue charging web sites listing more than one web page. So their easy access to information is limited to those who can pay to be found.
Additionally, Yahoo News promotes Associated Press and Reuters above all others dampening the "freedom of the press" that should be available.
MSN has its own skeletons as well. Shutting down New York Times reporter Zhao Jing's blog upon request of the Chinese government was no shining move. Term limitations are also followed, "democracy" and "human rights" were two noted by the report.
Google has reportedly decided to "take another look" at its past actions. Perhaps the wave of negative publicity Google recieved, which was much more than any other search engine, lead to the change. Google lives in the public eye.
Amnesty International pointed out that Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt said, "The prize is a world in which every human being starts life with the same access to information, the same opportunities to learn and the same power to communicate. I believe that is worth fighting for."
Unfortunately Google now offers a censored version of its site with a notice stating the Chinese government will not allow access to certain information. Though Google says it's reevaluating its stance with China we've yet to see any move to change.
AXcessNews.com makes a good point:
Amnesty International became a little radical in calling on Google, Yahoo and MSN to be more transparent in their dealings with China. While its one thing to expose injustice its another to demand businesses openly ignore laws within the markets they operate and that's particularly difficult on the Internet where borders are more virtual than real.
Consequently, Randy Chen of AXcessNews added:
As a Chinese citizen, I have to agree that my government should be a little more open and relax some of its Internet controls. In time I believe it will but I also have to point out that while Google, Yahoo and MSN have entered China's market, even though there is censorship here, their presence is more than we had in the past and has opened up vast opportunities for thousands of Chinese Internet users we've never had before.
A very good point that many seem to overlook. It's easy to pinpoint the bad, plus it makes for better news. While the China / US search engine dilemma stands for debate and many do not agree with the moves thus far we need to realize this is still a major step forward in many lights. More work needs to be done, surely, but perhaps we're taking the right steps when before we were taking none.
