Jeffrey Rosen has a great article in the New York Times Magazine this weekend titled Google's Gatekeepers. In it he deals with the question of whether we are becoming too overly dependent on a few big web companies like Google - and whether it's wise over the long run for us to trust their team of (currently) very nice, well-meaning people who are trying hard to do the right thing when faced with government censorship demands and surveillance pressures. He writes:

Today the Web might seem like a free-speech panacea: it has given anyone with Internet access the potential to reach a global audience. But though technology enthusiasts often celebrate the raucous explosion of Web speech, there is less focus on how the Internet is actually regulated, and by whom. As more and more speech migrates online, to blogs and social-networking sites and the like, the ultimate power to decide who has an opportunity to be heard, and what we may say, lies increasingly with Internet service providers, search engines and other Internet companies like Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and even eBay.

He quotes Columbia Law professor Tim Wu who says: "To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king...One reason they’re good at the moment is they live and die on trust, and as soon as you lose trust in Google, it’s over for them.”

Tim is not the first person to make this point. Danny O'Brien at EFF wrote and spoke about this issue at great length over the summer. I re-quote:

It’s like if I was to concede that a benevolent dictatorship is a far more effective model for a political system than a liberal democracy. The problems you hit in that context is when the dictatorship slides from benevolence (or effectiveness), or you need a new dictator in a hurry. I love having Steve Jobs at Apple: I just can’t quite believe the odds that the next Steve Jobs will be at Apple too, and the one after that. I want to move my data seamlessly where the best ideas and implementation move.

One effort to place collective limits on the absolute power of the web giants, and to create a framework for greater transparency and accountability, is the Global Network Initiative, with which both Danny and I have been involved. But the GNI is just one step. Danny also advocates a more grassroots solution if people want the same independence online as they have in the physical world (or at least in democracies):

If we want people to have the same degree of user autonomy as we've come to expect from the world, we may have to sit down and code alternatives to Google Docs, Twitter, and EC3 that can live with us on the edge, not be run by third parties.

I've been writing, speaking and attempting to think about these issues as well, in particular, what are the implications when you go beyond the democracies of North America and Western Europe? What are the concrete implications in the Middle East? In China? At the O'Reilly Web 2.0 Summit last month, I tried to provoke my web industry audience to rethink common American assumptions that the internet plus capitalism will inevitably equal democracy, without too much need to worry about the details. Here's the video of my talk, with slides overlaid:

Isaac Mao came right after me, talking about his idea of "sharism." Unfortunately he was asked to shorten his talk because the conference was running behind schedule and Al Gore had to catch a flight:

How do we create viable grassroots, distributed alternatives to Google and Twitter so that if they get shut down, or turn evil, we're not left in the lurch - or in jail?  At the iCommons Summit in Sapporo in August, I gave a longer version of the my O'Reilly talk, and called on the global free culture community to work together to make sure that there are enough grassroots, distributed, non-proprietary spaces for people to communicate and express themselves so that we won't be so dependent on the web's benevolent dictators.

The question I have not yet managed to answer is: how do we succeed in breaking our dependence on the benevolent dictators? Or how can we help at least some of our web and telecoms dictators evolve from being monarchies to something more accountable, transparent, and participatory? Figuring out the answer should, it seems to me, be a major priority of free speech activism in the 21st century, and thus a major priority for the foundations and governments who fund them.

On Thursday this past week, Beijing-based lawyer-blogger Liu Xiaoyuan won Deutsche Welle's annual prize for the Best Chinese Blog. Then on Friday he discovered that the parallel blog he keeps at Sohu.com had been taken down. Fortunately, being a famous blogger, he was able to call an editor at Sohu and get it restored, although the editor wouldn't explain what had happened. Ironically, Liu had just praised Sohu in an interview with the Wall Street Journal for being a more, er, considerate censor than the other blog-hosting platforms he uses:

In the past I sued Sohu for deleting my blog posts, but now I want to praise them. Sohu is the only BSP that posts notices on my blog saying, “this post has been hidden/removed for certain reasons . ” As a result, when web users visit my Sohu blog, they can know that a post has been hidden by Sohu. I think Sohu is brave to do this. I also run blogs on Sina, Ifeng, and others, but they simply delete blog posts without notifying my readers.

Last year I met Liu around the time he was trying to sueSohu for deleting some of his blog posts. He argued that the censored posts, analyzing criminal court cases, did not contain material that violated Chinese law, and that Sohu was therefore violating his user agreement. The lawsuit didn't get very far. Liu told me at the time that he writes on a dozen or so different blog hosting services because they all seem to have different censorship criteria - so for Chinese bloggers maintaining multiple blogs is the best way to keep your writing alive on the web.

My conversation with Liu inspired a systematic study of how blog-hosting companies serving mainland China censor their users' content. All Chinese blog-hosting companies are required by government regulators to censor their users' content in order to keep their business licenses. But as Liu discovered, they all make different choices not only about how to implement censorship requirements, but also how to treat the users who get censored.

Most Chinese bloggers who want an audience inside mainland China use domestic Chinese blog-hosting services - only a very tiny minority use overseas services like Blogger or Wordpress.com because they tend to be blocked, and even fewer have the tech skills to do their own custom Wordpress installation on their own rented server space. The aim of my research was to look at the Chinese blog-hosting services (which includes foreign brands offering services inside China to the Chinese market) and establish how much variation there is in terms of what gets censored and how it gets censored. Since it's not in the interest of people who work at blog-hosting companies to tell the truth about these things in great detail to a foreign researcher, I decided that the best way to do this would be to post a range of content across a number of blog-hosting services and track who censored what and how. With the help of John Kennedy, Ben Cheng, and some student research assistants, my team posted more than 100 pieces of content - passages from news items, blogs, and chatrooms of varying political sensitivity - consistently across 15 different Chinese blog-hosting platforms. We found that censorship levels and methods vary tremendously from company to company. I have written about some of the interesting findings that came up as we went along here, here, and here.

(Click on the chart at right to enlarge.) If I publish a chart naming who censors more than whom, it is likely that those who censor less will get in trouble with the authorities. Therefore in the chart at right I have changed all the company names to letters. Of 108 pieces of content on a variety of public affairs and news-related subjects from a variety of sources (ranging from Xinhua to dissident websites), the most censor-happy company deleted over half, while the most laid-back company censored only one. (Note that I only posted one item about FLG and one about Tiananmen because most bloggers expect those to be censored - it's more interesting to see how censorship works on topics that Chinese bloggers interested in current events might write about.)

UPDATE: In reaction to numerous queries I'm willing to disclose the list of blog hosts tested, but I will not say here on a public blog which ones correspond to the letters on the chart. The blog hosts are, in alphabetical order: Baidu, Blogbus, BlogCN, iFeng, Mop, MSN Live, MySpace, Netease, QZone, Sina, Sohu, Tianya, Tom, Yahoo! China, YCool.

Below are updated slides from presentation I gave at a recent conference discussing the details of my research results. A number of the slides illustrate the ways in which blog hosts not only censor different amounts of content, but examples of different censorship practices, with wide variation not only from service to service, but also depending on the nature of the content. 

I am writing an academic paper about this research which - given the slow gears of academic journal publishing - will probably take a year or more to get published. Given how quickly things change, however, it's useful to many people for me to share my findings and solicit feedback now. Please post your feedback in the comments section at the bottom of this post, or send me thoughts by e-mail (see my "about" page).

Earlier this Fall I took my preliminary findings and showed them to a number of people who work for Chinese Web companies, to solicit their views on why different Chinese blog hosts are censoring their users' content so differently. In my presentation I offer several conclusions to be drawn from what was a very experimental and relatively small-scale project:

• Internet filtering (“the great firewall”) is only one part of Chinese Internet censorship.
• Domestic web censorship is not centralized at all. 
• Domestic web censorship is outsourced by government to the private sector.
• Domestic web censorship is inconsistent - if you can't post successfully in one place, itʼs usually possible to post your content somewhere else, at least for at least a while.
• The system of “managing” user-generated web content in China appears to follow a similar logic and approach as the system for controlling professional news media.

When I write my paper those will be elaborated upon. I also identified a number of implications for researching Chinese censorship "inside the great firewall:"

• Need larger-scale studies of domestic web censorship (including chat rooms, social networking sites, instant-messaging, mobile services)
• Unlike automated filtering tests, these tests require manual testing and constant analysis by Chinese speakers with contextual knowledge - it is tedious work requiring attention to detail.
• Need surveys of web service company employees.
• Need surveys of users and bloggers about their experiences.

The findings also have implications for activists:

• Circumvention is important but itʼs not the solution to the whole censorship problem.
• Need to educate bloggers and netizens about strategies for successfully disseminating information online about politically sensitive subjects
• Need to do more to foster a global “user rights” movement demanding greater transparency and accountability by Internet companies on privacy and free expression. The Global Network Initiative is a good start in this regard but we need much more.

There is also a set of more global questions:

• Where else in the world is this kind of political censorship by web service companies of user- generated content happening? (Companies in the West already censor for child porn, copyright violations and sometimes hate speech.)
• Will the “Chinese model” - in which governments demand censorship by web companies - spread globally?
• What issues in this vein should the advocacy community be preparing for?
• What further research needs to be done to better understand global trends?

Got any views or anything to add about any of the above? Please hit the comments section.

UPDATE (Dec.1st): The good folks at YeeYan have translated this blog post into Chinese, here.

27 year-old blogger Zhou Shuguang goes by the nom-de-blog "Zola." The tagline of his blog says in English: "You never know what you can do till you try." He seems to be hitting up against the limits of what the Chinese authorities will let him do.

Zola has stirred up controversy by turning himself into a commercial brand while at the same time committing citizen journalism. He has been called many things by many people: The "nailhouse blogger." "Enfant terrible of the Chinese blogosphere." A Chinese journalist-blogger friend of mine calls him "post-modern."

Now Chinese authorities say he is "a potential threat to state security." For that reason, they barred his exit from China to Hong Kong on Sunday. He was on his way to Germany to serve as a judge for Deutsche Welle's Best of the Blogs awards.

I first learned of Zola's detention on Twitter, where he postedliveupdates about what was happening - which other people in his Twitter network quickly relayed across the Internet. He posted an update on his blog about the situation on Saturday afternoon, telling his readers to follow his Twitter stream for the latest developments. (A Google News search at 4pm Hong Kong time today turned up no mainstream media reports on his situation, which shows how slow the MSM has been to take advantage of the Chinese twittersphere...or they don't consider this news...)

It's unclear exactly what caused Zola to be deemed "a potential threat to state security," but he has been known to push the limits. Last Fall he was detained in Shenyang, roughed up a little, and sent home to Changsha when he tried to investigate protests related to a bizarre pyramid scheme. In June he announced he was going to Beijing to blog the Olympics. Soon thereafter, the police paid him a visit and told him it would be in his interest to stay home in Changsha. Once the Olympics were over he headed back to Beijing where, among other things, he worked with other bloggers to investigate the illegal "black jails."

I just communicated with Zola online. I asked him how he's feeling - he said he's tired but he feels ok, isn't stressed. I expressed surprise. He replied: 还好吧，我反正是玩，没什么压力. Which basically means: "It's ok, I'm just having fun, there's no pressure."  I asked him if he has any theories why he has been prevented from leaving the country. He said he's not sure what exactly he did that caused him to be labeled "a potential threat to state security." But he did speculate that the police might be "gathering evidence." What kind of evidence? "Maybe similar evidence as they got from Hu Jia," he answered.

Given what happened to Hu Jia, it's amazing he is not stressed.

For more on Zola see Global Voices here, here, here, and more generally here.
See the Wall Street Journal here.
Blog posts I've written about  him or mentioning him are herehere and here.

(UPDATE 10:50pm HKT: Apologies to Zola for getting his age wrong earlier. It has now been corrected.)

UPDATE, TUESDAY NOV.25TH:

Zola gives a timeline of events.

Global Voices Online: China: Citizen reporter Zuola becomes a potential threat to state security?!

Beijing-based lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan has some legal advice for Zola here.

We've got to do this!!

For my many globally-minded readers, note that global experts will be live-blogging the election from around the world. See Voices Without Votes for details.

For anybody who is on the fence who cares at all about technology policy, there's no contest between the two candidates. Here's a video:

For general inspiration, here's the final YouTube video now being circulated by the campaign:

If you're in the U.S. (and didn't vote absentee from overseas as I did) you can report your voting experience on Twitter. Here's a video demonstrating how to do it:

After more than two years of work behind closed doors, the Global Network Initiative is launching this week. That's the corporate code of conduct on free speech and privacy I've been talking about in generalities for quite some time. By midnight Tuesday U.S. East Coast time, the full set of documents and list of initial signatories will be made publicly available at globalnetworkinitiative.org.  UPDATE (noon HKT): the site is now live.

On that website you'll be able to read the full text of the Principles on free expression and privacy. A group of companies including Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft, human rights organizations, socially responsible investment funds, academics, and free speech groups spent the last two-plus years reaching agreement on what should go into that document. There will also be a Governance Charter and a set of Implementation Guidelines giving more detail on how companies should adhere to the core principles. There will be an FAQ, list of participants, and contact people for the organizations that have joined the Global Network Initiative so far. The hope is that many more companies, NGOs, investment funds, and academic institutions around the world will join in the coming months.

The initial plan was to release the news so that the first news reports about the initiative would come out closer to the website's unveiling at 12:01am Wednesday EDT or 12:01pm HKT. But the story leaked early and the San Francisco Chronicle reported it on Monday without any comment from the participants who had all agreed not to talk until the official launch. Since then, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, WSJ China Blog, the AP, AFP and others have reported the story with remarks from some of the participants. We can expect more coverage in the next 24 hours. UPDATE: The BBC has a good story with lots of quotes from participants.

A few people have called me asking "does this thing have any teeth" or "is this thing more than just a figleaf for companies to get congress off their backs?" 

Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Human Rights in China, Human Rights First, and the Committee to Protect Journalists would not be putting their reputations behind this thing if they didn't think it was meaningful.

That said, the initiative must prove its value in the next couple of years by implementing a meaningful and sufficiently tough process by which companies' adherence to the principles will be evaluated and benchmarked. If there is a rigorous process that rates the companies' behavior, then investors who care about social responsibility, and users who want to know how trustworthy a given company is compared to others, can make more informed choices.

The initiative is based on the reality that there is pretty much no country on earth - including the United States - where governments aren't pressuring telecoms and Internet companies to do things that potentially violate users' rights to privacy and free expression. Companies must consider the right to free expression and privacy of users in all markets to be part and parcel of what it means to be socially responsible. Part of the problem is that many telecoms and Internet companies just have not been thinking through these issues as they roll out products and services around the globe, resulting in all kinds of unintended consequences - the TOM-Skype fiasco in which Skype's Chinese business partner was found to have allowed a huge security breach being the latest example. The Initiative is about getting companies to think ahead and incorporate human rights assessments into new product plans or plans to enter new markets. It's also about being more transparent and honest with your users about what's being censored, why and how, and informing them about how and with whom their personal data is being stored and shared. That way, users can make informed choices about how and when it is safe or reliable to use these services - or not.

As critics point out, the initiative stops short at making companies pledge to commit civil disobedience, break local laws, or to pull out of markets at a certain prescribed point. Depending on where you stand, you might consider this a strength or a weakness. The initiative is focused specifically on how to engage in markets around the world while doing everything you can to avoid causing harm to users and customers. It won't on its own stop governments (of any given ideology or political system) from doing bad things to their own citizens. If it's successful, however, it will help companies who truly care about their users to think ahead about how they can avoid acting as an un-transparent and un-accountable extensions of government abuse. Whether even such a modest success can be achieved will require a lot of work from all the organizations who have already signed on and who may sign on in the future. NGO's, investors, human rights organizations, user groups, and academics need to make sure that the companies' performance on matters related to free speech and privacy is evaluated in a rigorous and meaningful way. I hope that groups around the world will not only insist but help to make sure that this initiative will be much more than a fig leaf.