Marcelo Thompson

Prof Zittrain asks me an intelligent question about my earlier post, which deserves to be brought to the forefront:

JZ: Google refuses to return results when people enter in numbers structured like credit card numbers into its search box. Is this non-neutral behavior? If so, do you think it is wrong?

MT: I think it is as much non-neutral behaviour as Google’s earlier decision to *allow* one to check if her credit card could be found online or not.

To enlarge on that, let us start with a more theoretical point, by asking: can we aspire to neutrality in our technological choices? Perhaps in our most serene and evasive meditations we can indeed remain neutral. Otherwise, there are always different values, different reasons for action underlying our choices — even our technological choices. Practical reason, the kind of reason that tells us why to act, is both speculative and moral, and we cannot avoid any of its dimensions. Either in moral or speculative terms, we cannot choose to believe — we either believe or not, and act according to our beliefs or in self-deception. The choices we make, based on our beliefs, are always choices for a reason; they are always the weighing of different values for which we cannot help but to care. Either in law and policy or in our own auto-nomy, choices are never neutral. Choices are choices amongst values; they affirm or help the pursuit of some values while denying or hindering the pursuit of others.

So what does this tell about Google? Well, in Google’s credit card case this was no different. There were two competing perspectives on how to ensure privacy vis-a-vis other values. One would allow you to verify if your credit card data is available online — and thus to take further action in this regard. The other would prevent anyone, including you, from sorting this fact out. The most beneficial choice for Google was, all things considered, both to enable your privacy *and* to minimize Google’s chances of being charged with secondary liability. Google decided to design its technology to meet the values it cared most about.

Were they to have neutral decisions, why would they have Policy Counsels?

In network neutrality this is no different either. The self-reputed neutral end-to-end principle is deeply evaluative and holds values it cares about in its very core. The QoS folks are just more transparent in conceding they do care for some values and act according to them when designing technology (i.e. they do not claim they are being neutral) — whether you share their values or not. It is always in the end about a “reflective equilibrium” amongst different values and principles. Moral life is not an Archimedean venture.

The Preta Gil case is interesting because it shows, and picturesquely so, that the technological infrastructure does embed and reflect different values. Whether Google was conscious of them or not in the first place, whether they were Google’s or someone else’s values, now these values are dashing and shouting through the information environment. Google cannot help but to hold its own conception of the good and act according to it with regard to these values. Whether it intervenes because it believes Preta Gil’s right to image is so sacred or it does not intervene because it believes freedom of expression should prevail, in one case or the other it will be making a value choice — a choice which will unavoidably favour a particular evaluative perspective; which will help the pursuit of some values while hindering the pursuit of others. A non-neutral choice.

In sum: No, I do not think that Google’s decision in the credit card case was wrong. I do not think that Google’s decision of flagging badware websites is wrong either. My point is just that these are value decisions, as much as Google’s decision to favour a more robust end-to-end principle is a value decision.