their terms of service. (Based on an examination of current terms of service of the 22
top sites as listed by Webhosting.info. One of the top sites does not offer a formal
terms of service—it controls hundreds of thousands of domains itself, but has no customer relationships. Two sites serving China did not have terms of service available on
their Web sites. Evaluation covers the remaining 19 sites.)
In contrast to BlueHost’s decision to deny service to over 300 million potential customers, sanctioned or not, other companies are taking a de minimis approach to compliance with U.S. government restrictions. Andrew McLaughlin, senior policy counsel
for Google, notes, ‘‘We do the minimum to comply with the export restrictions and
sanctions regimes. Primarily, this means (1) we don’t allow downloads of software
(Google Earth, e.g.,) containing cryptography from IPs believed to be in restricted
countries (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan)—this includes the Google download
server and code.google.com; and (2) we don’t engage in any sort of money transactions
into or out of restricted countries. We do not, though, block access to publicly available
sites where there are no downloads.’’ 30 Perhaps in reaction to the criticism the company took for filtering search results in the Chinese market, Google has demonstrated
a willingness to challenge government-mandated filtering measures. When South Korea
passed a law requiring online postings to be accompanied by the author’s real name
and ID card number, Google’s YouTube division disabled commenting and video
uploads from South Korea, but allows Korean users to state that they are posting from
another country and post anonymously. 31
The Economics of Intermediary Censorship
Google may have decided to disable comments in South Korea to make a statement
about how requiring identification systems limits online speech. Or they may have
been making a smart business decision—it would have required a major engineering
effort for Google to build an identity authentication system for YouTube in Korea.
The decisions BlueHost, LinkedIn, and others have made make more sense in a context
of business risk and reward, rather than in a free speech and human rights context.
BlueHost advertises entry-level Web hosting for an annual cost of USD 83.40. Web
hosting is a highly competitive business, and profit margins tend to be quite tight.
With professional legal counsel experienced in U.S. export and sanctions law charging
hundreds of dollars an hour for advice, it is an easy decision for BlueHost to sacrifice a
handful of customer relationships in exchange for avoiding legal review. It is possible
that LinkedIn made a similar evaluation and reversed course when public pressure
indicated that LinkedIn’s cost in terms of public relations damage might be substantial
for removing Syrian users.
Wendy Seltzer identifies the problem of ‘‘unbalanced incentives’’ as a major concern
in the United States’ administration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
78
Ethan Zuckerman
top sites as listed by Webhosting.info. One of the top sites does not offer a formal
terms of service—it controls hundreds of thousands of domains itself, but has no customer relationships. Two sites serving China did not have terms of service available on
their Web sites. Evaluation covers the remaining 19 sites.)
In contrast to BlueHost’s decision to deny service to over 300 million potential customers, sanctioned or not, other companies are taking a de minimis approach to compliance with U.S. government restrictions. Andrew McLaughlin, senior policy counsel
for Google, notes, ‘‘We do the minimum to comply with the export restrictions and
sanctions regimes. Primarily, this means (1) we don’t allow downloads of software
(Google Earth, e.g.,) containing cryptography from IPs believed to be in restricted
countries (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan)—this includes the Google download
server and code.google.com; and (2) we don’t engage in any sort of money transactions
into or out of restricted countries. We do not, though, block access to publicly available
sites where there are no downloads.’’ 30 Perhaps in reaction to the criticism the company took for filtering search results in the Chinese market, Google has demonstrated
a willingness to challenge government-mandated filtering measures. When South Korea
passed a law requiring online postings to be accompanied by the author’s real name
and ID card number, Google’s YouTube division disabled commenting and video
uploads from South Korea, but allows Korean users to state that they are posting from
another country and post anonymously. 31
The Economics of Intermediary Censorship
Google may have decided to disable comments in South Korea to make a statement
about how requiring identification systems limits online speech. Or they may have
been making a smart business decision—it would have required a major engineering
effort for Google to build an identity authentication system for YouTube in Korea.
The decisions BlueHost, LinkedIn, and others have made make more sense in a context
of business risk and reward, rather than in a free speech and human rights context.
BlueHost advertises entry-level Web hosting for an annual cost of USD 83.40. Web
hosting is a highly competitive business, and profit margins tend to be quite tight.
With professional legal counsel experienced in U.S. export and sanctions law charging
hundreds of dollars an hour for advice, it is an easy decision for BlueHost to sacrifice a
handful of customer relationships in exchange for avoiding legal review. It is possible
that LinkedIn made a similar evaluation and reversed course when public pressure
indicated that LinkedIn’s cost in terms of public relations damage might be substantial
for removing Syrian users.
Wendy Seltzer identifies the problem of ‘‘unbalanced incentives’’ as a major concern
in the United States’ administration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
78
Ethan Zuckerman