Is Google Fighting to ‘Save the Internet’ From Itself?
By: Daniel R. Ballon, Ph.D.
10.12.2007 10:54:00 AM
An article in the Examiner reports that Google this week removed advertisements critical of MoveOn.org from its AdWords advertising network. What could possibly motivate a company with the motto "Don't be evil" to censor the free speech of its customers? Ultimately, Google bowed to the same two forces which led it to block access to thousands of sites in China: politics and money. Pundits such as Michelle Malkin and John Gibson have implied that Google's actions were driven by liberal ideology. While they are correct to suspect political motives, Google's defense of MoveOn.org has nothing to do with the Iraq war, and everything to do with Net neutrality. For over two years, Google has pushed for strict new regulations to forbid Internet service providers from charging content providers like Google and Amazon different prices for customized service. For an excellent review of how Net neutrality will stifle innovation and slow down the Internet for everyone, see PRI's recent study, "Net Gains or Net Losses? The Net Neutrality Debate and the Future of the Internet." In April of last year, Google teamed up with MoveOn.org to mobilize a grassroots "fight for Internet freedom." In addition to the almost $20,000 donated by Google executives, it is rumored that Google supplied MoveOn.org with more than $1 million in corporate cash to underwrite its Net neutrality campaign. In appealing to its 3 million members, MoveOn.org raised fears that absent Net neutrality, service providers would block content for financial or political reasons. According to MoveOn.org's Adam Green, "Every Republican and Democrat who uses the Internet is threatened by corporations that want to control which Web sites people can access." This is what makes Thursday's revelation so ironic. If Google had succeeded in passing Net neutrality legislation, it might very well have a legitimate cause of action against itself. To protect an alliance, Google selectively barred a MoveOn.org critic from its advertising network. This sounds exactly like the type of behavior Google and MoveOn.org have been warning us about: "The free and open Internet has empowered everyday people across the political spectrum to speak out, to be heard, and to effect change. Imagine an Internet operator which didn't like the views of MoveOn.org Civic Action or the Christian Coalition. Without Internet freedom, they could legally slow down our sites or block them altogether." When AT&T and Verizon recently engaged in content discrimination (see PRI Tech Blog posts here and here), Net neutrality advocates were quick to warn of "adverse consequences for consumers in the absence of clear net-neutrality rules." They fail to mention that AT&T and Verizon responded to consumer dissatisfaction within days by eliminating the offending policies. In stark contrast, Google has decided to hide behind trademark arguments which experts find weak and unconvincing. Google is a private company, and should be free to govern its network in any way it chooses. As Google contemplates expanding into the wireless broadband and mobile device markets, however, it might wish to reconsider lobbying for strict new laws which it plans to violate. In a competitive marketplace, consumers, not government, should punish those companies which restrict free speech. There is no better illustration of this principle than the growing consumer movement to boycott Google (for example, see here, here, here, and here).
|
