Thread by @tiffanycli

Everything Sundar Pinchai says here is disappointing. It’s sad to see a formerly mission-driven company lose its moral compass. Goodbye freedom of information, hello censored search engines. wired.com/story/wired-25… via @WIRED

Pinchai uses a very weak excuse to defend Project Drafonfly: “We are compelled by our mission [to] provide information to everyone, and [China is] 20 percent of the world's population.”

Here’s why we shouldn’t accept this from Google:

First, many orgs have to balance cultural values w/int’l markets. This isn’t a new problem & certainly not a new problem for Google. “Balancing cultural values” doesn’t obligate compliance w/every restrictive regime. Google knows this, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.

2) There is a valid argument that it is better to provide some information than no information. This is what Pinchai is saying here, noting the company’s mission. But it’s not how Google has historically interperted their mission, esp re China. Project Dragonfly is a 180 turn.

3) Wikipedia’s mission is also to provide information to the world. And yet the Wikimedia community has stayed firm in fighting against censorship rules of restrictive regimes. Many other sites do the same. Google used to (e.g., Google Hong Kong).

4) Here’s the main point: It’s FAR WORSE to create a censored search engine than no search engine at all. Why? Because once you create a censored search engine, you validate censorship as a global norm.

5) By building Project Dragonfly, Google is telling the world that censorship is A-OK, that censored information can be sufficient for a free world. Other restrictive regimes will see this and note it. Other tech orgs will be pressured to comply.

6) Google is a powerful company, and Pichai’s words have global impact. We are witnessing the erosion of freedom of speech on the internet.

The real risk of Project Dragonfly isn’t harm to China; it’s harm to all of global democracy.

/end