RSSMSN Speaks Out About Censorship
By Ed Oswald | Published January 31, 2006, 4:07 PM
Microsoft on Tuesday set guidelines for the removal of content on its MSN Spaces blogging platform, saying a broader discussion on the topic was needed to provide a basis on which other services could form their own content policies when faced with demands from local governments.
The company reaffirmed its position at a meeting of government officials in Lisbon, Portugal. The meeting comes after a firestorm over Google's recent censoring of search results on its Chinese Web site, a move that contradicted its philosophy of offering the most open, unadulterated search results.
Microsoft Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith said the company's policy in dealing with government orders can be broken down into three pillars: standards for protecting content access, maintaining global access, and user notification.
Unlike Google, Microsoft is forcing governments to take a proactive stance in having information removed. The company said it must receive legal notice that the content violates local laws before it is taken down. Microsoft would continue to remove content on its own if it violates the MSN Spaces terms of service.
When content is blocked due to local laws, MSN Spaces will now only block the content in that region, while allowing it to be viewed elsewhere in the world. Smith said the company is currently implementing this change into the Spaces infrastructure.
Also, if content is blocked, Microsoft will follow a policy of notifying the user with an explicit reason. Smith added that the industry needs to have a dialogue on content restriction issues to develop a set of principles to guide how companies deal with more restrictive governments.
Ostensibly agreeing with Google's moves in China, Smith said that Microsoft believes it is important to offer services in restrictive markets rather than skip these areas altogether. In the end, it benefits the consumer, he argued.
MSN Spaces is one of the largest blogging tools on the Internet with 35 million users.
I like the stand that MS has taken. It seems logical both in business and the rights of other nations. It isn't up to MS, Google, or me to decide what is best for China, based on our own civil liberties and ideas. I further don't believe that the only way in which change takes place is through death. It simply is not true.
Change has been taking place in China, and the very fact that MSN, Google, Yahoo, or anyone else for that matter are doing business in their country is a sign of change. Change takes time and is done in small steps. It is funny though, that the only view of the Internet will be seen through the mind of Google, which is a pretty scary thought. Google's interest is in profits and the delivery of ads through its services.
Score: 0
|Good on 'em.
Make the censors ask each time. Unlike Google who graciously does the blocking for them.
Score: 0
|Yeah, and then turn around the next day and criticize the EU for wanting to regulate the entire Internet. Don't get me wrong, I agree that EU control of ANYTHING is bad, but I also see the hypocrisy Google seems to have going on in their midst.
Score: 0
|And they don't criticise China? Have you *read* any of their statements about this?
Score: 0
|"Microsoft believes it is important to offer services in restrictive markets rather than skip these areas altogether."
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. Nobody buys a cow if the milk is free. Access to information is a BENEFIT of a free society, and you can't be "a little bit" free, any more than you can be "a little bit" pregnant. If the Chinese people want to enjoy the benefits of a free society, they need to reshape their government. Yes, I know the Communist regime has guns and tanks, whereas 99.99% of the population has wooden sticks and seldom owns more than one pair of shoes. I am saddened by massacres like Tiananmen Square, but most free countries in the world have shed blood to earn their freedom. That's just the price. There are more than a BILLION Chinese. A BILLION. If the Chinese people ever decide that the choice is liberty or death, the army's tanks and guns won't mean a thing.
But if Microsoft continues letting the quality of life in China SEEM to improve, by offering half-baked luxuries online, Microsoft becomes part of the problem, not the solution.
Score: 0
|i see your point :-)
Score: 0
|As I said to another, I agree... but a US company does not have control or influence of China's laws. Until it does or the US has control over it, there is nothing wrong with following the law in order to do business.
Neither the US nor its businesses are helped by failing to comply with the law.
Score: 0
|There is no "sensible access to freedom". Freedom is, or it isn't. It's not randomly accessible.
Chew on that for a while.
If you are subjectively allowed basic freedoms at the whim of the State, you are not in a free state.
Score: 0
|Here here..
Score: 0
|You're absolutely right... unfortunately we don't have control over China or its laws. Until we do, there's nothing wrong with following the laws in order to do business.
Score: 0
|Probably the most sensible thing I have ever heard on this subject.
Props to whomever at Microsoft thought of and developed this plan.
Score: 0
|"When content is blocked due to local laws, MSN Spaces will now only block the content in that region, while allowing it to be viewed elsewhere in the world"
>>>See... this is how it should be. Compliance with laws while still allowing sensible access and freedom.
Score: 0
|Excuse my obvious slant, but...
I assume this implies others have not done so while allowing sensible access and freedom for the rest of the world.
Any service in particular?
Score: 0
|Yeah... Google complies with China's laws, fails to comply with US court requests, but then challenges the EU the next day that censorship and "control" of information shouldn't be in the hands of one group... all the while having a mission to "index" the entire world's information.
Score: 0
|They "block content in that region, while allowing it to be viewed elsewhere in the world."
Is this not what you just praised MS for doing?
And how does indexing all they can from china(and thus making it available to us) go against their Mission? They are doing what is legally possible to further that mission within that country.
Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
Score: 0
|