a wealth of knowledge and experience to the process, our collectively limited understanding was also acknowledged and is reflected in GNI’s adaptive stance.
Beyond identifying common cause, reaching rough consensus for an operating
approach was essential for the development of supportive strategies and tactics. These
positions are apparent in the documents, both by their presence and their absence.
As with the rest of the group decisions, they do not necessarily represent agreement,
except in the collaborative context of the GNI. The consensus included support for corporate engagement, the development of tools that accounted for the complexity of the
situation, and the notion that we would actively develop understanding and responses
over time.
The group, for instance, took the perspective that on balance it was better to have
companies operating responsibly even in potentially repressive markets, both in terms
of services rendered and the leverage of positive engagement (around transparency and
rule of law, in particular). Platforms that many consider self-indulgent or worse, including Twitter (and its 140-character ‘‘what are you doing?’’), Facebook, and YouTube,
have proven to be powerful platforms for activists. (Indeed, in the lead-up to the 20th
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, these and others were blocked in
China. 25 ) The tools they provide to potentially advance social, economic, and political
democracy are especially important in information- and communications-poor settings, as artfully argued by my colleague Ethan Zuckerman. 26
Just as we note the power of new technologies to support human rights, it is equally
essential to recognize the potential influence of company relationships and process on
government behavior. After Microsoft removed Michael Anti’s blog based on a lessthan-formal request from Chinese law enforcement, for instance, the company implemented new policies with respect to content takedowns. In addition to limiting
removal to the local jurisdiction, Microsoft began requiring ‘‘legally binding notice
from the government indicating that the material violates local laws,’’ as well as requiring assurance ‘‘that users know why that content was blocked, by notifying them that
access has been limited due to a government restriction.’’ 27 Google’s launch of
Google.cn, criticized by many for its willingness to censor results, also initiated the
practice of appending a warning to filtered search results that notes the removal of certain results according to local law, subsequently instituted by Microsoft and Yahoo!,
and later followed by Chinese services including market-leader Baidu. 28 Moving forward, strong corporate process may indeed be a great resource for supporting rule of
law and fostering increased transparency on free expression and privacy.
Participants
Global Network Initiative participants include ICT companies, nongovernmental
organizations, investors, and academics. The founding group of companies comprises
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. Academic participants in the GNI are Annenberg School
Protecting Privacy and Expression Online
93
Beyond identifying common cause, reaching rough consensus for an operating
approach was essential for the development of supportive strategies and tactics. These
positions are apparent in the documents, both by their presence and their absence.
As with the rest of the group decisions, they do not necessarily represent agreement,
except in the collaborative context of the GNI. The consensus included support for corporate engagement, the development of tools that accounted for the complexity of the
situation, and the notion that we would actively develop understanding and responses
over time.
The group, for instance, took the perspective that on balance it was better to have
companies operating responsibly even in potentially repressive markets, both in terms
of services rendered and the leverage of positive engagement (around transparency and
rule of law, in particular). Platforms that many consider self-indulgent or worse, including Twitter (and its 140-character ‘‘what are you doing?’’), Facebook, and YouTube,
have proven to be powerful platforms for activists. (Indeed, in the lead-up to the 20th
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, these and others were blocked in
China. 25 ) The tools they provide to potentially advance social, economic, and political
democracy are especially important in information- and communications-poor settings, as artfully argued by my colleague Ethan Zuckerman. 26
Just as we note the power of new technologies to support human rights, it is equally
essential to recognize the potential influence of company relationships and process on
government behavior. After Microsoft removed Michael Anti’s blog based on a lessthan-formal request from Chinese law enforcement, for instance, the company implemented new policies with respect to content takedowns. In addition to limiting
removal to the local jurisdiction, Microsoft began requiring ‘‘legally binding notice
from the government indicating that the material violates local laws,’’ as well as requiring assurance ‘‘that users know why that content was blocked, by notifying them that
access has been limited due to a government restriction.’’ 27 Google’s launch of
Google.cn, criticized by many for its willingness to censor results, also initiated the
practice of appending a warning to filtered search results that notes the removal of certain results according to local law, subsequently instituted by Microsoft and Yahoo!,
and later followed by Chinese services including market-leader Baidu. 28 Moving forward, strong corporate process may indeed be a great resource for supporting rule of
law and fostering increased transparency on free expression and privacy.
Participants
Global Network Initiative participants include ICT companies, nongovernmental
organizations, investors, and academics. The founding group of companies comprises
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. Academic participants in the GNI are Annenberg School
Protecting Privacy and Expression Online
93