NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Turkey vs. YouTube
Turkey vs. YouTube
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000992.html
So just now I was starting to wind down serious work for the day, when
my "topic alarm" fired. I run a homemade filter on my email inbox
that watches for a sudden influx of messages with "similar" subject
lines. When a certain threshold is reached over a specified period of
time, an alert goes out to various devices, warning me of this
circumstance via an audio clip from one of my favorite old television
series, which shall remain nameless here.
The topic that triggered this evening was from various people sending
me references to a Reuters piece from earlier today, noting that
Google had agreed to create an instance of YouTube under Turkey's
".com.tr" domain, and to redirect YouTube users coming from Turkish ip
addresses to that "version" of YouTube ( http://j.mp/PNVeiR [Reuters] ).
Primarily, people are asking me if this represents a capitulation of
Google to Turkey's continuing censorship demands.
To try answer that, let's look at this situation first from the
standpoint of the Turkish government, then from the Google side,
keeping in mind that of course I don't speak for Turkey or Google.
Looking at the Middle East, Turkey and Iran (both non-Arab countries)
have the largest Muslim populations.
We hear a lot about Iran these days, but much less about Turkey.
Turkey has been relatively secularized for many years, but is dealing
with a resurgence of fundamental Islam. This appears to have made
them increasingly willing to push back against a wide swath of
Internet materials that they view as potentially destabilizing from a
religious or (intertwined) political standpoint. In fact, Turkey's
escalating restrictions on the Net have been of increasing concern for
quite some time. Back in 2008, Turkey blocked (or rather, tried to
block) all access to YouTube for over two years.
Google abides by valid orders to block individual countries' access to
materials, but Turkey apparently feels that the existing process up to
now does not give the government sufficient direct say. By forcing
Google to operate under a Turkish domain, they feel they will have
more direct control. At least, that's their ostensible argument.
I say ostensible because statements by the Turkish government suggest
that another motive is money. Turkish officials have been making
expansive claims about the need for Internet companies to have
in-country presences, and how this will force firms to pay a range of
fees to the Turkish government.
The money aspect of the situation is perhaps given even more credence
by the reality -- surely known to Turkish officials by now -- that
vast numbers of Turks have long been using proxies to bypass the
Internet restrictions imposed by the government. These proxies should
continue to be just as effective for reaching the global YouTube site,
despite the YouTube changes demanded by Turkey and now (we can be sure
reluctantly) acceded to by Google.
The options on the Google side are not unfamiliar in this era of
governments attempting ever more broadly to restrict their populations
access to the Internet.
Google naturally also knows that Turks can still use proxies to access
the conventional YouTube site, unrestricted by Turkish government
edicts. Google also realizes that if the Turkish government imposes
additional attempted total YouTube blackouts, this is at the very
least a major hassle for a great many YouTube users in Turkey.
So given continuing Turkish government intransigence relating to the
Net, Google's decision to agree to the government's demands in this
case can certainly be viewed as entirely rational.
A broader question many people asked about in their emails this
evening, was if this situation creates a slippery slope that could
lead to many other countries making similar demands, and to what
extent this differs from the situation in which Google found itself in
China regarding government attempts there to micromanage Google's
search results, leading to Google's exit from experimental cooperation
with the Chinese government in that sphere.
The attendant risks do exist. But we must also come to terms with the
sad fact that a varied and increasing number of governments around the
world are trying to block (or considering trying to block) various
aspects of the Internet right now, even right here in the U.S. As the
old saying goes, that cow is already out of the barn.
Even more to the point, it's clear that attempting to judge these
situations from a basis of moral absolutism are (as a purely practical
matter at least) doomed to failure, given the political, legal, and
other realities facing anyone, or any firm, offering services around
the world.
So we're increasingly facing a depressing, but still very real,
continuum of censorship issues. On one end, we might place countries
with fairly narrow laws restricting particular imagery, such as French
laws related to the Nazi era. At the other end, we might specify
China, with a vastly broader and pervasive censorship regime. And of
course, then there are nations that attempt to block the Internet
pretty much entirely (except for the chosen few).
What we see is a mosaic of related complexities, of sharp edges that
don't easily fit together, and that might cause considerable bleeding
all around -- for both these firms and their users -- if not handled
with the understanding that no "one size fits all" response to these
concerns is practicable. And notably, this holds true even as we
condemn government censorship itself in very strong terms
( http://j.mp/OVCOjS [Lauren's Blog] ).
So no easy answers, no magic wands -- only a tough slog as we work our
way through what is sure to be an accelerating series of attempts by
governments to remake the Internet in their own images, and efforts to
muzzle many aspects of the Net that are among its most important and
socially valuable attributes.
The fundamental technology involved pretty much assures that these
attempts to shackle the Net will fall far short of their goals.
Still, the period we are entering will certainly be one of great
challenges, and we will likely not be able achieve the sort of
totality of global, open Internet speech that many of us would ideally
prefer.
But to paraphrase a famous singing philosopher, even when we can't
always get what we want, it is still worthwhile to try very hard to
achieve what we need.
That effort alone will be keeping us very busy for quite
some time indeed.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad