Watching the horizon

The tale of Google, China and Internet freedoms.

This story starts back in 2006, when Google first started operating in China. In the agreement struck with the Chinese government Google, like the rest of China’s search engines, would filter their content, omitting results from foreign news services and politically sensitive material. Google’s move was met with a storm of criticism by commentators who believed that by agreeing to voluntarily filter their search results, Google was betraying their unofficial credo- “Don’t be evil.” Google assured it’s critics that it would “carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services,” and formulate it’s policy accordingly.

Fast forward to January 2010 when Google- now responsible for 30% of web searches in China (though still behind the 60% held by Baidu, China’s leading search provider)- went public with allegations of having discovered several sophisticated cyber attacks originating from China targeting both large American companies and the Gmail accounts of several Chinese human-rights activists. On top of this, Google also revealed their discovery that the Gmail accounts of both western and Chinese advocates for human rights in China had been regularly accessed by third parties- though likely through the means of malware and phishing scams. David Drummond, Google’s Chief Legal Officer who made the disclosure went on to argue that the attacks represented a challenge to the principals Google stood for and that they called for Google to “reconsider our approach to China,” recognizing “that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”

But Google’s thinly veiled allegations against the Chinese government didn’t appear to be the result of failed talks with the government. Rather, it seems that the government found out at the same time everyone else did- when Google publicly released the information on their blog. Moreover, Google’s promise to “reconsider their approach” wasn’t, meant as a threat or bargaining chip, but as a definite statement of intent; Drummond announced in clear terms that “We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.” Soon thereafter, the Google.cn service was deactivated and replaced with an automatic redirect to the unfiltered Google Hong Kong service.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese government protested against this change, and threatened not to renew Google’s internet licence. Talks with the government ensued and recently the Google.cn page was modified so as to provide a link to Google Hong Kong for users wanting to utilize the search feature, while Google continued to host music, product and translation services (all largely apolitical issues) on it’s Chinese site. This transferred much of the responsibility for using Google as a tool for unfiltered searches to the user and seemed to appease the government who, on July 20th, issued a statement of approval regarding the changes.
Beijing’s response towards Google has been unexpected to say the least. Ever since Beijing expressed approbation of Google’s initial actions Google’s share price has steadily fallen, as traders bet that Google risked loosing their share of the blossoming Chinese market. But it isn’t the only unexpected move the Chinese Government has taken concerning internet freedoms; recently Beijing refused to renew the funding for the controversial Green Dam project for 2010. Green Dam is a filtration program which was originally meant to be installed on all computers released in China after July 2009. It was meant to block out violent or pornographic material, but a horde of vocal critics –including many domestic pundits, commentators and bloggers– pointed out it could be easily used to repress politically sensitive information. In response to the criticism, the Chinese authorities stated that use of Green Dam would be optional, and ultimately it only ended up installed on 20 million computers, which were meant for use in internet café’s and schools. Now, with funding cut altogether, it seems that even those last remnants of the Green Dam will soon vanish.

The Green Dam, if used as an all-out filtration tool would have been a powerful weapon for China’s censors; not only would it be able to identify individual users who sought out censored material, but it would also prevent any way of circumventing China’s infamous Golden Wall of internet censors through proxy servers, special software or secret networks. And this isn’t the only time that China has eased internet censorship in response to public criticism- protests during the 2008 Beijing Olympics saw censorship eased –though admittedly with many sites only permitted while the international media eye was trained on Beijing. More importantly, the growing prevalence of online “citizen journalists” who bypass the Golden Wall to discuss politically contentious issues has forced China to rethink it’s stance on censorship, in a way which acknowledges the growing free speech movement.

This means that both the acts of scaling back the Green Dam and then terminating its funding altogether constitute weighty statements by the part of the Chinese government; the acts almost seem to imply that while censorship is still the official stance, and the letter of the law, the sprit of the law is shifting towards “don’t ask, don’t tell”. If people are trying to privately circumvent internet censorship, the government appears to be becoming more willing to look the other way. But -as the attacks which sparked the row with Google seem to demonstrate- if you’re out to create widespread dissent or actively challenge the government, then you will be met by a more forceful censorship. Such an approach is rather reminiscent of the way jaywalking laws are treated over here; usually jaywalkers go unprosecuted, but the laws remain to allocate blame if and when the jaywalker causes public upset. Perhaps the analogy is a bit premature, but there are an increasing number of signs pointing in that direction.

So why the sudden shift? The answer may have a lot to do with the ever increasing way the internet is integrated into our lives. A recent poll, commissioned by the BBC, found that 79% of people worldwide believe that “internet access is a fundamental right”. And at 87%, this figure is even higher for China- which has more internet users than any other country. Moreover, a majority of the Chinese respondents place the most value on the internet as a means of obtaining information, and only 35% of internet users believe that they could cope without it (as opposed to 55% worldwide). What these figures suggest is a deepening integration of internet use with people’s lives and the way in which they understand the world. Notably, only 40% of Chinese users agree with the statement “the internet should never be censored by any level of government anywhere,” (and keep in mind the poll was conducted independently) which seems to imply that in using the internet to access information matters more in contributing to a sense of Chinese identity than it does in obtaining objective information; 60% of internet users accept some degree of government censorship, and yet the majority of users also value it’s ability to access information, a seemingly paradoxical fact, until you consider that information is not necessarily about discovering the truth, but about constructing a specific picture of the world.
This notion seems to be reflected in the data form other parts of the world as well. For example, South American culture is often broadly thought of as highly socially connected, and indeed, most South American countries place an above-average value on social networking. Likewise, Americans are more likely than the rest of the world to believe that the internet affords them greater freedom, especially freedom of speech; a fitting opinion for a country which places great value on individual freedoms.
As the internet grows, and becomes more sophisticated, and as new technology and new habits integrate it deeper into our lives, we face a horizon in which the internet and the way in which we use it is essential to our sense of self, serving as an extension of our senses, our voice, and our minds, and ultimately as a collective consciousness. Photos and videos and news shared online become a repository, not only of knowledge, but of memory. Immersive websites and comprehensive wikis allow us to visit places and encounter concepts which were once remote. In light of China’s changing stance on internet use, it seems highly feasible that China has understood the likely future of internet use, and may be tailoring it’s stance with an eye to the new horizon.

Facebook’s Chemical Success

For the most part, we live our lives faced with a diverse array of options. We each make our own individual choices, based largely on personal preference when it comes to things like what we eat, what music we listen to, or what we spend our spare time doing. Most often, we are the happiest when we are involved in the experiences that suit us best. But from time to time, an anomaly pops up, and we find something that seems to transcend human preference. For example, across the world’s diverse cuisines, there are a few ingredients that seem to pop up wherever you look. Salt, sugar, grains and citrus are almost ubiquitous across the world, despite the vast diversity of culinary cultures which exist.

On the face of it, there is no reason why a taste like salt should be more pervasive than any other taste – such as the taste of cacao, turmeric or mint. Nonetheless, certain tastes seem to be universal, while others are confined to certain cultures. The reason for this is simple: while we are all defined by our individual choices and preferences, there are also fundamental commonalities that characterize all humans, and certain tastes are so successful precisely because they appeal to these commonalities. In the case of food, our taste buds are divided into five sections, each specialized to identify a certain taste: bitter, sour, sweet, salty and umami (effectively the taste of savouriness). In turn, these groupings developed so that we could better taste and enjoy a specific range of foods which would contribute to a healthy diet. For most of the history of human kind, salt was a scarce commodity, while a sour taste was a sign of the many immune-boosting vitamins often present in fruit. Being better able to detect bitter tastes meanwhile may have been a way for us to identify poisonous plants and fruits. So overtime, our taste buds developed certain specialities which in turn served to ensure that certain flavours were effectively fundamental to the human nature.

If we look at the number of people, especially from younger generations, who rely heavily on Facebook, or if we look at the numbers for certain other online phenomena, such as YouTube or Google, we are tempted to conclude then that they too allow us to access something fundamental to human nature. And, indeed, this is true; only in this case, what Facebook and its online compatriots harness is not our sense of taste but something even more central to human existence: pleasure. And so to understand Facebook’s success, we first have to understand how we find things pleasurable.

The human body runs off two different pleasure systems: opiates and dopamine. Opiates produce the placid contentment that comes after exercise, sex or completing a challenging task, while dopamine produces a more energetic, driving rush, which gives all animals a sense of purpose and enthusiasm. A balance between the two is essential; any animal that is slips into catatonic contentment too easily won’t have enough drive to go out and fulfill its basic needs or to remain vigilant against threats. It’s dopamine that keeps us active, that makes us derive excitement from curiosity and activity, which makes most human beings averse to total laziness. The dopamine rush is so invigorating that it accounts for the addictiveness of some of the most dangerous drugs, and when rats are given a switch wired to trigger their dopamine production, they will often press it until they pass out.  But dopamine doesn’t deliver contentment, and without opiates working in conjunction, we would live our lives in a state of high frenzy, attaching little value to success, constantly seeking new stimulation but not drawing much from the results. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is the interplay of these responses that has made Homo-sapiens such a successful species, as it has allowed us to comprehend and creatively shape our environment. But sometimes, when environments change, evolutionary responses can be co-opted to work against their original purpose.

It may seem like a stretch to say that things like the Facebook news feeds or Google’s little search box represent something fundamental about human existence but, here, what these sites are harnessing is our drive for information. The way these sites are able to organize and present large amounts of information gets our dopamine going, but the cursory nature of the information presented ultimately proves unsatisfying, and so we get stuck in a dopamine feedback loop, constantly seeking new stimulation. The reason we normally feel compelled to watch a number of YouTube videos but don’t necessarily feel the urge to watch another movie or even short film after the first is that YouTube videos mostly tend to provide more basically stimulating gratification, be it a quick laugh or a flashy music video, whereas the structured progression of more complex movies leads us to a conclusion that is akin to reaching the end of a puzzle or completing a task. In the latter case, we are left satisfied, in the former, merely stimulated. Operating only on dopamine is often contrary to the sort of slow, measured progress that is needed to succeed in more challenging and complex tasks. Dopamine provides motivation, but not diligence. This also means that as we become more accustomed to situations where we are constantly seeking dopamine-based stimulation, we are likely to demand instant gratification more assertively and more often. And indeed, internet addiction is becoming an increasingly prevalent condition – with the symptoms of withdrawal often mirroring drug addiction in many ways.

In all fairness, other studies have shown that people who frequently use Facebook demonstrate a greater ability to multi-task. Along the same vein, there are also studies which suggest that regular internet use can help boost your IQ. But these findings are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is possible to have a population better able to multitask- and perhaps even getting smarter- which is affected by a diminishing attention span which makes the completion of complex tasks ever more difficult.

When companies discover, or stumble upon, something that seems to appeals nearly universally, they gain a great deal of power and significance. Heinz produced a ketchup which stimulated all five basic taste receptors – bitter, sour, sweet, salty and umami – and as a result came to dominate the market in ketchup. But Facebook’s market share is not in condiments, nor even simply in social networking. Rather, what Facebook, YouTube and all the rest represent are the way we access and order information. By co-opting our dopamine responses to get us addicted, they also ensure that the information we access increases in breadth as it decreases in depth. This means reading many more news headlines but fewer (or at least shorter) articles, browsing more status updates but doing so in the time it takes to have a proper conversation about someone’s day. And the ever-growing popularity of Twitter serves to reinforce, and is symptomatic of, a world that may be rapidly developing a 130 character attention span.