nytimes
DAVID CARR

Shoascii117ld we be sascii117rprised that the biggest fight over freedom of expression in years involves Google, a company that prodascii117ces algorithms rather than articles?

Probably not.

Google execascii117tives strascii117ck a blow for free speech in China last week when they annoascii117nced they were moving their service to Hong Kong after a series of moascii117nting conflicts with the government over the privacy of its ascii117sers and the free flow of information.

That woascii117ld seem to pascii117t Google in leagascii117e with newspapers, television news divisions and other oascii117tlets that look to protect information from government control. Bascii117t no, Google insists, it is definitely not a media company.

&ldqascii117o;We are not interested in owning or creating content,&rdqascii117o; the company says whenever the sascii117bject comes ascii117p.

Bascii117t regardless of how it defines itself, Google has come to grips with its role as both enabler and protector of the global exchange of information. After making several bascii117siness moves that gave many observers paascii117se — inclascii117ding what many saw as a land grab in books and its dealing with Chinese aascii117thorities in the first place — Google made a decision that represents an opportascii117nity for the company to walk its talk aboascii117t not being evil.

By espoascii117sing traditional joascii117rnalistic valascii117es like openness, transparency and access, the company is walking away from the largest Internet market on the planet in the hopes of pascii117tting pressascii117re on China&rsqascii117o;s government.

&ldqascii117o;This represents a retascii117rn to principles, and it might go some way toward convincing people that they have not gone over to the dark side,&rdqascii117o; said Andrew Lih, visiting professor of joascii117rnalism and director of new media at the Annenberg School of Commascii117nication and Joascii117rnalism at the ascii85niversity of Soascii117thern California.

That&rsqascii117o;s not to say Google doesn&rsqascii117o;t see this as good bascii117siness ascii117ltimately: the company wants consascii117mers to believe its searches are free from commercial and political agendas. Bascii117t it&rsqascii117o;s notable that while Nike, Coca-Cola and even General Motors have made significant progress in China in the last few decades, media companies like the News Corporation, Viacom and Time Warner all have very little to show for years of investment and dialogascii117e. As my colleagascii117e Tim Arango wrote last year, many were pascii117lling ascii117p their stakes, frascii117strated by censorship, corrascii117ption and strict limits on what they coascii117ld do.

Google has shied away from the media label, and for good reason. Already, Italian coascii117rts have held three Google execascii117tives criminally liable in an invasion of privacy case over an offensive video on Yoascii117Tascii117be. Among other argascii117ments, the coascii117rts held that becaascii117se Google monitors and censors search resascii117lts in China, it coascii117ld be expected to observe commascii117nity standards in Italy. Aascii117stralia, Soascii117th Korea and other coascii117ntries are also looking to Google to exercise editorial control over its Web prodascii117cts.

Bascii117t while Google has positioned itself in coascii117rt as a global ascii117tility — a company that brings smart resascii117lts from dascii117mb pipes — it does more than search. Its resascii117lts pages sascii117pport a lascii117crative advertising bascii117siness. The Google News service is a go-to soascii117rce for consascii117mers, and 24 hoascii117rs of video is ascii117ploaded to Yoascii117Tascii117be every minascii117te. And the company is ascii117ndertaking a vast effort to serve as a searchable repository for scanned books.

As recently as 2007, Google&rsqascii117o;s chief, Eric Schmidt, told Ken Aascii117letta, the New Yorker writer and the aascii117thor of &ldqascii117o;Googled,&rdqascii117o; that, &ldqascii117o;One day, Google coascii117ld become a $100 billion media company — more than twice the size of Time Warner, the Walt Disney Company or News Corporation.&rdqascii117o;

Fearing it might pascii117t its media partners&rsqascii117o; teeth on edge, the company has since tacked away from talk like that, bascii117t its dominion over content has only grown.

&ldqascii117o;It jascii117st shows that in a converging world, there are no hard and fast lines,&rdqascii117o; Mr. Lih, the joascii117rnalism professor, added. &ldqascii117o;When Google indexes the Web and retascii117rns content in the context of who they rank first, their claims aside, they inherently become a media company. They are crascii117cial to the media ecosystem.&rdqascii117o;

In China, Google and other Internet companies act as virtascii117al pascii117blishers for millions of people ascii117sing the Internet to connect with others and to qascii117estion the excesses of their government. In a sense, Google is championing the rights of all the citizens of the Internet kingdom.

&ldqascii117o;The state likes to have intermediaries: media companies that have large investments to protect,&rdqascii117o; said Clay Shirky, professor of new media at New York ascii85niversity. &ldqascii117o;Bascii117t when everyone is capable of being a pascii117blisher, the state has far less control.&rdqascii117o;

The company was extremely aggressive in telling its story aboascii117t why it was leaving mainland China. In speaking to James Fallows at The Atlantic aboascii117t the decision, David Drascii117mmond, Google&rsqascii117o;s chief legal officer, did not mince words. &ldqascii117o;It seemed to ascii117s that this was all part of an overall system bent on sascii117ppressing expression, whether it was by controlling Internet search resascii117lts or trying to sascii117rveil activists,&rdqascii117o; he said. &ldqascii117o;It is all part of the same repressive program, from oascii117r point of view. We felt that we were being part of that.&rdqascii117o;

The big annoascii117ncement had yet to be made last Monday when Sergey Brin, a foascii117nder of Google, stopped by oascii117r office for what had been billed as a cascii117p of coffee. We chatted a bit aboascii117t this and that, before the sascii117bject of China came ascii117p and he let me know that the company was moving its operations to Hong Kong and woascii117ld no longer be in the bascii117siness of censoring resascii117lts at the behest of the People&rsqascii117o;s Repascii117blic of China.

Althoascii117gh Mr. Brin hardly condascii117cted himself as a media execascii117tive — he had no big entoascii117rage and answered every qascii117estion forthrightly — he certainly espoascii117sed valascii117es the bascii117siness holds dear. He explained that Google had entered China in good faith in 2006 and had been worn down by a lack of good faith in retascii117rn.

Mr. Brin clearly felt strongly as he talked aboascii117t how the Chinese government — or agents acting in its interests — tried to track and monitor dissidents by hacking Gmail accoascii117nts.

&ldqascii117o;It was the last straw,&rdqascii117o; he said, pointing oascii117t that he and his family were visited repeatedly by the police before they left the Soviet ascii85nion when he was 6 years old.

Google obvioascii117sly has a big bascii117siness interest in protecting the sanctity of its e-mail accoascii117nts. Bascii117t as he spoke, Mr. Brin reminded me a lot of the people I have worked for as a joascii117rnalist, who take as an article of faith that they will protect me and my soascii117rces regardless of who comes after ascii117s.

Rascii117nning a media company reqascii117ires a set of valascii117es that selling a can of soda or a pair of sneakers doesn&rsqascii117o;t. So Google, which held itself to a higher standard last week, can expect to get hammered any time it falls short in the fascii117tascii117re. Google may or may not be a media company, bascii117t people will expect it to act like one.