re GOOGLE STAFF TELL BOSSES CHINA CENSORSHIP IS “MORAL AND ETHICAL” CRISIS from the Intercept

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Good analysis djf 


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Chuck McManis <chuck.mcmanis () gmail com>
> Date: August 17, 2018 at 08:27:58 GMT+9
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] GOOGLE STAFF TELL BOSSES CHINA CENSORSHIP IS “MORAL AND ETHICAL” CRISIS from the Intercept
>
> [for IP]
>
> I am not a big fan of the Intercept's journalistic style, I find calling Google's leadership 'bosses' to be 
> needlessly inflammatory for engineers. That said, as a former Googler, and having worked inside of Google for four 
> years, the interesting bit for me is the sudden awareness that perhaps Google isn't the place the engineers thought 
> it was. 
>
> As with any discourse, underlying beliefs can be different and the same facts can be seen in very different ways.
>
> I see Google as a company that has terminal cancer but is putting on a good face while it searches for a cure. The 
> cancer is that search advertising, the only thing that makes any money inside of Google at the margins they need to 
> maintain their lavish environment, is dying. The symptoms that are out there for all to see; their CPC numbers (the 
> cost per click is the money they get from advertisers for a click) has been going down for nearly a decade now, their 
> search 'quality' (the reason that people would pick their search results over a competitor like Bing) has remained 
> stagnant while Bing's have improved, and the amount of money they pay out per quarter for search traffic from other 
> sources (phones, web browsers, etc) has skyrocketed. Advertising only works if you have eyeballs on your ads. Google 
> has been adding more and more ads to their own sites, reducing the amount the pay out to partner sites, and paying 
> more and more money to third parties to send their search traffic to Google rather than Bing.  For me, I see these as 
> signs of a dying ecosystem.
>
> If you can accept that my view of what is going on at Google is 'true', the Chinese search engine makes total sense. 
> There are more eyeballs in a strong economy in China than anywhere else in the world. It is the one place where 
> Google doesn't currently play, and even if their margins on Chinese searches were half that of the rest of the world, 
> it would be additional air in the pipeline while they continue to fight for a new business that can supply the 
> margins they need to avoid losing their staff.
>
> Do they know their employees would hate it? Of course they did and they tried to keep it secret. How desperate do 
> they need to be to risk all of that? Very desperate.
>
> If on the other hand, you believe the party line (which is the view that folks I know who are still at Google will 
> share with you) then Google has never been stronger, and is crushing it on all fronts. Everyone wants to be "Google" 
> and all the cool kids are there. There is no cancer here, no existential risk to the company, and no reason to worry.
>
> The problem then is this, if you've convinced people that the company line is "true" then their argument that they 
> are going into China with a search index that caters to the Chinese governments authoritarian whims is antithetical 
> to everything you stand for. 
>
> That puts Google management in something of a bind, either explanation is bad. Either the company is dying and in 
> fear for its life so its compromising its principles to extend its runway, or the company is evil and at the height 
> of its power it is selling services in an authoritarian regime and supporting the goals of that regime for filthy 
> lucre. 
>
> There might be a third explanation that fits all the facts but I haven't figured that one out yet.
> --Chuck
>
>
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:37 PM Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> > I have forwarded the whole item since I believe it raises IMPORTANT points
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/google-china-crisis-staff-dragonfly/
> >
> > GOOGLE STAFF TELL BOSSES CHINA CENSORSHIP IS “MORAL AND ETHICAL” CRISIS
> > Ryan Gallagher
> > August 17 2018, 2:38 a.m.
> > Illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
> > GOOGLE EMPLOYEES ARE demanding answers from the company’s leadership amid growing internal protests over plans to 
> > launch a censored search engine in China.
> >
> > Staff inside the internet giant’s offices have agreed that the censorship project raises “urgent moral and ethical 
> > issues” and have circulated a letter saying so, calling on bosses to disclose more about the company’s work in 
> > China, which they say is shrouded in too much secrecy, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter.
> >
> > The internal furor began after The Intercept earlier this month revealed details about the censored search engine, 
> > which would remove content that China’s authoritarian government views as sensitive, such as information about 
> > political dissidents, free speech, democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest. It would “blacklist sensitive 
> > queries” so that “no results will be shown” at all when people enter certain words or phrases, leaked Google 
> > documents disclosed. The search platform is to be launched via an Android app, pending approval from Chinese 
> > officials.
> >
> > The censorship plan – code-named Dragonfly – was not widely known within Google. Prior to its public exposure, only 
> > a few hundred of Google’s 88,000 employees had been briefed about the project – around 0.35 percent of the total 
> > workforce. When the news spread through the company’s offices across the world, many employees expressed anger and 
> > confusion.
> >
> > Now, a letter has been circulated among staff calling for Google’s leadership to recognize that there is a “code 
> > yellow” situation – a kind of internal alert that signifies a crisis is unfolding. The letter suggests that the 
> > Dragonfly initiative violates an internal Google artificial intelligence ethical code, which says that the company 
> > will not build or deploy technologies “whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and 
> > human rights.”
> >
> > “Google employees need to know what we’re building.”
> > The letter says: “Currently we do not have the information required to make ethically-informed decisions about our 
> > work, our projects, and our employment. That the decision to build Dragonfly was made in secret, and progressed with 
> > the [artificial intelligence] Principles in place, makes clear that the Principles alone are not enough. We urgently 
> > need more transparency, a seat at the table, and a commitment to clear and open processes: Google employees need to 
> > know what we’re building.”
> >
> > The letter goes on to demand “an ethics review that includes rank and file employee representatives”; the 
> > appointment of an ombudsperson to oversee the process; a plan for more transparency to be instituted across the 
> > company so that employees can make ethical choices about what they choose to work on; and “ethical test cases” 
> > assessing the Chinese censorship plans. The effort to write and circulate the letter was partly led by a group of 
> > Google employees who previously protested the company’s work with the U.S. military to build artificial intelligence 
> > that could identify vehicles and other objects in drone footage. That protest was successful and led to Google 
> > allowing its contract with the military to expire.
> >
> > Many Google employees are members of the Association of Computing Machinery, the world’s largest organization for 
> > computing professionals. The ACM’s ethical code states that its members should “take action to avoid creating 
> > systems or technologies that disenfranchise or oppress people” and “use their skills for the benefit of society.” 
> > Two Google sources told The Intercept that they felt the Dragonfly project clearly violated the ACM’s code of 
> > ethics, which has led them to support the protests inside the company against the planned China censorship.
> >
> > Google’s leadership has still not spoken to employees about Dragonfly, according to the sources, who spoke on 
> > condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to contact the media. Publicly, Google’s press office has 
> > declined to answer any questions from reporters about the censorship, and has said only that it will not comment on 
> > “speculation about future plans.”
> >
> > The silence from Google bosses appears to have fueled anger within the company. Discussion has raged among Google 
> > employees, with some questioning their managers, only to be told that details about Dragonfly cannot be shared. It 
> > has emerged that at least one Google staffer who worked on Dragonfly left the company partly due to concerns about 
> > the project, and another employee who was asked to work on it refused to do so.
> >
> > This week, hundreds of Google employees shared an essay authored by Brandon Downey, a former Google engineer who 
> > says he worked for the company on an earlier version of its censored Chinese search platform. Google launched a 
> > censored search engine in China in 2006, but pulled the service out of the country in 2010, citing Chinese 
> > government efforts to limit free speech, block websites, and hack Google’s computer systems. Downey’s essay, which 
> > he published online, criticizes the censorship, and calls on Google not to “make the same mistake twice” by 
> > launching Dragonfly.
> >
> > “We have a responsibility to the world our technology enables. If we build a tool and give it to people who are 
> > hurting other people with it, it is our job to try to stop it, or at least, not help it.”
> > “I want to say I’m sorry for helping to do this,” Downey wrote. “I don’t know how much this contributed to 
> > strengthening political support for the censorship regime in [China], but it was wrong. It did nothing but benefit 
> > me and my career, and so it fits the classic definition of morally heedless behavior: I got things and in return it 
> > probably made some other people’s life worse.”
> >
> > “We have a responsibility to the world our technology enables,” Downey adds. “If we build a tool and give it to 
> > people who are hurting other people with it, it is our job to try to stop it, or at least, not help it. Technology 
> > can of course be a force for good, but it’s not a magic bullet – it’s more like a laser and it’s up to us what we 
> > focus it on. What we can’t do is just collaborate, and assume it will have a happy ending.”
> >
> > Google is facing mounting pressure both inside and outside the company. The Dragonfly plan has been condemned by a 
> > bipartisan group of six U.S. senators and several human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human 
> > Rights Watch.
> >
> > Google has not yet responded to questions posed by the human rights groups or senators, sources said. However, the 
> > company has in recent days engaged with the Global Network Initiative, or GNI, a digital rights organization that 
> > works with a coalition of companies, human rights groups, and academics.
> >
> > Google is signed up as a member of the GNI, which means that it has committed to implementing a set of principles on 
> > freedom of expression and privacy. The principles appear to prohibit complicity in the sort of broad censorship that 
> > is widespread in China, stating that member companies must “respect and work to protect the freedom of expression 
> > rights of users” when they are confronted with government demands to “remove content or otherwise limit access to 
> > communications, ideas and information in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards.”
> >
> > Google will have to explain to the GNI how its plan to launch a censored search in China is consistent with the 
> > initiative’s principles. In response to questions from The Intercept, the GNI refused to discuss its interactions 
> > with Google. However, Judith Lichtenberg, the group’s executive director, said in a statement: “All member companies 
> > are expected to implement the GNI principles wherever they operate, and are subject to independent assessment, which 
> > is overseen by our multi-stakeholder board of directors.”
> >
> > Cynthia Wong, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, is one of the representatives on the GNI’s board of 
> > directors. Wong told The Intercept that Google “owes the Chinese people an explanation of how the firm can launch 
> > Dragonfly without being conscripted into human rights abuses.”
> >
> > Wong added: “Google earned a lot of good will from the human rights community with it stopped censoring search in 
> > 2010. Yet the human rights situation has only deteriorated in the years since. If it re-enters now without any clear 
> > strategy as to how its services will improve human rights, it would be a victory for [President] Xi Jinping’s regime 
> > and will only serve to legitimize the government’s abusive approach. We haven’t yet heard any such strategy.”
> >
> > Google did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
> >
> > We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us
> >
> > Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal
> > CONTACT THE AUTHOR:
> > Ryan Gallagher
> > ryan.gallagher@​theintercept.com
> > @rj_gallagher
> >
> > 5 Comments
> > Join Our Newsletter
> > Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180816211529:056562D2-A1BB-11E8-99A8-868A366D0D78
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com