journal of digital research & publishing - The Sydney eScholarship ...

1 P M J O U R N A L O F D I G I T A L R ESEARCH & P UBLISHING
greater access to information from the searches made by users. Google is now more than
a content search and provider, Google actively makes new content available through the
digitisation of other forms, particularly books.
Is Text Choice Censorship? Libraries and the State
As Google works to compile its library of Alexandria, a complete collection of all books ever,
we must wonder, by whose standards are books being judged? Traditionally public libraries
choose books based on local standards, interests and by making judgment as to what is
appropriate for their audiences, one might not, for instance, put A Clockwork Orange in
a primary school, or Spot the Dog in a law library. Should we be concerned about the
potential for censorship? The American Library Association, quoted in Wired points out
that ‘Although public libraries have often contended with demands to eliminate or restrict
355%**& 67& *'%5$45& )77H*S& 3"9& 57##%56$7"& 03"3,%0%"6& 8%5$*$7"& )9& 3& '3>6$5(#3>& #$)>3>$3"&
affected only that community. Here, by contrast, if Google bends to political pressure to
remove a book, it will suppress access to the book throughout the entire country’ (Singel
2009, p. 2). Google has responded to concerns about its censorship practices, though
not directly related to potential book censorship, with the release of the ‘Government
Requests’ page on its website, asserting that ‘we believe that greater transparency will
lead to less censorship’ (Google 2010 in Forbes, p. 1). The page lists the amount of requests
made by governments for information about users or the removal of information, though
it does not list any results for China.
Concerns regarding censorship have often been a problem for Google, the company
has a history of submitting to state censorship. The Google China website, launched in
2006 was created because ‘while removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s
mission, providing no information ... is more inconsistent with our mission’ (Google.
cn 2006, p. 1), Google.cn argued that its compliance with Chinas censorship laws is in
keeping with its practice in Germany and France, where displaying Holocaust denials
or hate speech is illegal, however it could be argued that these topics deny key events in
the history of the two countries, while Google.cn alters searches for ‘the banned spiritual
sect “Falungong”, “Taiwan independence” and “human rights”, show[ing] scores of
links to sites that support the Chinese government position’ (News Limited 2006, p. 1).
Google is also known to moderate the content on YouTube and provides optional family
#),1%,1!0-1%+.!C)+!'1.!.%"+#4%.7!G,!;