PHM-Exch> Is google violating women's rights ?

[Kamayani Bali Mahabal]

http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Is-Google-violating-women-s-rights

Google Inc.’s recent restrictions on ads for abortion services in fifteen
countries raises questions about the influence of search engine provider
policies on freedom of information. In withholding access to this kind of
information, are women’s rights being violated?

by Masum Momaya

On September 17, 2008, internet-giant Google Inc. issued an AdWords
advertising policy update stating it would no longer accept ads that promote
abortion services in fifteen countries: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany,
Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Singapore, Spain and Taiwan. When a user searches for keywords in a search
engine, AdWords show up alongside search results as “sponsored links” and
are a source of revenue for the search engine company.

At the time of this writing, when searching for the relevant translation of
“abortion” in each of the fifteen localized Google search engines, no
sponsored links appeared in any of the countries – for abortion-related
services or otherwise. Incidentally, no AdWords come up either in China - a
country that heavily restricts search results for many topics – Greece or
South Korea. Meanwhile, AdWords featuring abortion service providers do
appear in localized searches in Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK
and the US.

*AdWords are Politically-Charged*

Since their inception, AdWords have been the subject of numerous
controversies. For example, because advertisers select keywords to be
associated with their ads, they can
manipulate<http://news.cnet.com/surveillance-state/?keyword=transparency>
 the searcher's intention to find specific kinds of information. Search
engine companies can also control access to information by refusing to
accept certain kinds of ads, raising red flags about freedom of information,
as was the case here and with a December 2008
controversy<http://news.cnet.com/surveillance-state/?keyword=transparency>
 when Google Inc. did not allow members of the public to place Web ads
detailing companies that have donated to politicians in the US.

With this policy revision, it appears that Google Inc. has chosen to steer
clear of controversy, avoiding any kind of related ads altogether in the
fifteen specified countries. The shift in and specificity of the company’s
policy indicates it is taking a stronger role in verifying and deciding what
ads are placed – a move that has policy and ethical implications.

*Policy Inquiry*

Various women’s rights organizations, including Women on
Waves<http://www.womenonwaves.org/set-2015-en.html>
 and Health Equity and Law Clinic
<http://www.law.utoronto.ca/visitors_content.asp?itemPath=5/12/1/0/0&contentId=1453>at
the University of Toronto as well as Feministing blogger Lori
Adelman<http://www.feministing.com/archives/016439.html>,
approached Google Inc. in June 2009 to ask for a rationale behind and
revision of the policy.

Acknowledging that Google Inc. had the right to “refuse or terminate any
advertisement at any time and for any reason,” Rebecca Gomperts, Joanna
Erdman and Susan Newell, who wrote the inquiry on behalf of Women on Waves,
the Health Equity and Law Clinic and more than 115 other signatory
individuals and organizations worldwide, were concerned about “the adverse
effect of the [policy] on women seeking safe and lawful abortion services
due to restricting access to information.” They argued that such
restrictions “may contribute to unsafe abortion in a manner inconsistent
with human rights principles,” pointing out that Google Inc. “plays an
important role in the protection of human rights.”

The inquiry letter also argued “advertisements on abortion services can be a
valuable source of information on both the legal status of abortion and the
availability of services, and thus a crucial measure to mitigate access
barriers to safe and lawful abortion.” Susan Newell, who spoke to AWID
earlier this month, said that, to her knowledge, they have not yet received
a response to the letter.

Adelman told her readers that she was “pretty disturbed by Google’s ability
to withhold information about reproductive health services in these
countries without justification or accountability.” Adelman also wrote to
Google Inc. and received a reply from a company representative stating the
search engine’s goals were to “provide more relevant results and a higher
quality experience for our users, and to have policies that are fair,
consistent and adaptable.” The spokesperson went on to say that the new
policy was “consistent with local customs and practices” and that it created
a “level playing field” that enabled religious associations to place ads on
abortion in a “factual” and “campaigning” way, provided that the goal was to
“educate and inform, not shock.”

*Legality of Abortion Services Ads*

In most cases, the first screen for allowing ads is compliance with local
laws.

Although Google Inc. did not state this in its
response<http://www.feministing.com/archives/016439.html>
 to Feministing, there is an assumption that, at least in some of the
fifteen countries, the company is simply complying with local law that
forbids advertisement for *any* medical services and prescription drugs, as
is the case in France.

In other countries, such as Germany and Italy, for-profit abortion providers
are illegal and abortions can only be had in public hospitals. In a few
other countries, private abortion providers, while operating legally, are
still prohibited from buying advertisements in any medium.

When asked about the legality issues surrounding this, Newell explained “an
absolute prohibition on abortion service advertisements is unnecessary and
inconsistent with the Google AdWords’ general policy on advertisements that
are subject to legal regulation. The general policy states that it is the
responsibility of the advertiser (not Google AdWords) to ensure that its
advertisements are in full compliance with the applicable domestic law.” In
other words, those submitting the ads, and not Google Inc., should be doing
the screening for legal compliance.

Similarly, Southern Students for Choice, a self-identified pro-choice group
in the US that submitted
comments<http://www.feministing.com/archives/016439.html>
 to the Feministing blog, argued that “if Google restricts ads for abortion
because of a country’s laws, it follows that people will question it’s
reliability in providing unbiased search results, especially from algorithms
that in themselves have to introduce a kind of ranking – or bias- to simply
display a list of results.”

Given all the legal issues, it is unclear – and difficult to discern -
whether national governments have put pressure on Google Inc. to block
certain kinds of ads, as was the case in China; whether Google Inc. is
bowing to pressure from certain religious groups and using legality as a
convenient reason for prohibiting ads and/or whether Google Inc. is
proactively abiding by law. In any case, it is unlikely that Google Inc. or
any other search engine would risk breaking the law, especially if there is
little profit to be made from a certain type of ad, and the topic is
potentially controversial.

*Aren’t Ads Viewed as Spam Anyway?*

A number of comments on the Feministing blog note that, while the policy is
disturbing, it is not a “big deal” in the long-run given that search engine
results themselves still yield information about abortion service providers,
which is the case in most of the fifteen countries, even if links to service
providers are buried several pages into the search results. Another comment
stated, “Google ads are best known for spam."

Southern Students for Choice wrote in response that “in geographic areas
where abortion rights are restricted it is even more important for people to
be informed about laws, policies, and existing providers, both through
advertising as well as through more objective sources of information.” Thus,
they say, ads matter.

Newell agrees, dismissing the claim that most people automatically treat the
ads as spam. She reasons that “AdWords advertisements provide a benefit over
search results alone,” explaining that “the person attempting to access the
information is more likely to see the advertisement as it will appear on the
first few pages of results, and information appearing as an advertisement
through Google AdWords increases the credibility of information.” She
explains that this is particularly important given the rising number of
sites providing medical information these days and the difficulty of
assessing the quality and credibility of them, an “overwhelming task” for a
woman seeking an abortion.

So do we want Google Inc. sorting, accrediting and ordering our information
for us, ads or otherwise? And is doing so in a truly unbiased way possible
for a for-profit company whose major source of revenue is dependent on
advertising?

*“Decision” Search Engine?*

Microsoft, with its recently-launched “decision search engine” Bing, claims
to do just this. Billed as a tool that “finds and organizes the answers you
need so you can make faster, more informed decisions,” the new product
claims to circumvent the “overwhelmed” problem. Bing orders descriptive
information about each topic prior to any opinion or service-related sites
in all of its localized search engines, regardless of country.

Regardless of search engine used – Google, Bing or otherwise - search
results are ordered through an algorithm that is not publicly revealed, and
employees from these companies manually alter the algorithm and the display
of search results.

*Competing Priorities*

While search engine companies such as Google Inc. may aim
to<http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/>
 ”organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and
useful”, it is clear they won’t fundamentally compromise their revenue
stream or embroil themselves in legal and political battles to do so.

Meanwhile, a number of women’s rights groups are calling on Google Inc. to
uphold freedom of information and protect human rights.

This tension remains unresolved and is being worked out through policy
decisions such as the recent Google Inc. decision. In the meantime, it is
important for women’s rights activists and social justice advocates more
generally to understand the issues and limitations behind what does – and
does not - show up when Googling for “abortion” or any other topic, for that
matter, and continue to be on the lookout for this “invisible” violation of
women’s rights.

*The author would like to thank her AWID colleagues Gabriela De Cicco and
Lejla Medanhodzic for their research assistance with this article.*



-- 
Adv  Kamayani Bali Mahabal
Mobile-00919820749204
skype:lawyercumactivist

http://www.petitiononline.com/Jprof123/
www.binayaksen.net
www.phm-india.org

I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.......
Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20090827/33fa76a6/attachment-0001.html>