The Olympics In The Internet Age: More Than China Bargained For?The Olympics In The Internet Age: More Than China Bargained For?

Free people and journalists everywhere are expressing outrage today on the heels of news that 34-year-old Chinese Hu Jia will be jailed for another 3-1/2 years (in addition to the year that he's already spent in prison) for broadly distributing his views on democracy and criticisms of Chinese policies via the Internet. In this day and age of the Internet, did China get way more than it bargained for when it lobbied to bring the Olympics to Beijing?For a government that's betwixt and between business globalization pressure from Taiwan and Hong Kong, the spotlight on Tibet, and the growing tide of dissidence amongst its own citizenry, the Internet has proven to be a difficult beast to tame.

Never before has the world gotten a better insider's look at the lengths to which the Chinese government will go to preserve its impositions on freedom as well as the will of the Chinese people to effect change.

China wants it both ways. Its rulers want to tap into the lucrative trends of globalization. But as willing as it is to import cash from the free world, it prefers to silence the democratic baggage that comes with that cash as well as any internal dissidents who are willing to receive that baggage (and amplify it). Before the Web and the Internet, the Free World didn't even know who those dissidents were or how many of them were out there. But now, thanks to their Internet tenacity, dissidents like Hu Jia are getting their much-needed 15 minutes of fame.

The Internet already was an unwanted thorn in the Chinese government's side. Life styles of the rich and famous (commonly associated with democracy) leaks in, while news of what really goes on behind closed doors leaks out. Armed with the sort of information it never had before, the Free World has been able to apply more leverage than ever on the Chinese government in an effort to bring about change. In some cases, like with Tibet, much to the despair of freedom advocates (and mostly to that of the People of Tibet), that leverage sometimes feels as though it's not working.

But look again.

Thanks to the Internet and Jia's 15 minutes of fame on the world stage, he is being silenced in a very different way (jail) than he might have been during the pre-Web era. The Chinese government knows that the lines it crossed before simply can't be crossed now. The Free World, particularly the parts where elected officials rely on the support of their constituents, won't stand for it. It's not that the Free World should accept the jailing of free thinkers and speakers like Jia. it's just that China knows exactly where the line currently is and how to gingerly walk it. Today, that line isn't exactly where some of us would like it to be. But in terms of who can really apply leverage on China (e.g., the U.S. government), it is where it is.

But now that China is hosting the Olympics, the Chinese government has a new problem on its hands. One that, perhaps in hindsight, isn't turning out to be such a good deal (for them). The presence of the Olympics on Chinese soil has armed the people of the Free World with a new, direct leverage over China that they simply never had before. By hosting the Olympics, China disintermediated foreign governments from the human rights negotiation and now, instead, it must negotiate with the world. That's a very different proposition for the Chinese government than the one where an American president goes to China to bargain American dollars for human rights (amongst other things).

Now, everyone from government officials to television advertisers and sponsors of the Olympics to the Olympians themselves to you and I can play a role. Thanks to the Internet, we now have the information on which to act. The question is, how will you act?

Olympians, for example, can choose not to go. I have a friend who missed the 1980 Olympics due to the U.S. boycott. As an athlete, he was in his prime in 1980 and the gold medal was his to lose (he scored the gold at the Pan American games). Four years later, his chances of winning, let alone making the team, weren't nearly as good. Eventually, he made the team again. But never got the gold. Was the sacrifice worth it? I guess only Olympians can decide for themselves. But one could argue that if an athlete was so good that s/he could use that talent to change China, then it would be better than bringing home the gold. Put another way, dissidents in China are risking their lives to make the world a better place. What are the rest of us doing?

In a partial answer to that question, while the Internet has played an important role in arming us with actionable information that we never had before about what's happening on the ground in places like Tibet, now it also is playing a role in taking the action itself. For example, Facebook is full of groups that are taking a stand against China for everything from human rights abuses to the exploitation of animals for their fur. At last count nearly 10 of them (the largest of which has more than 2,700 members) were dedicated to boycotting the Olympics.

The impact of social networks on world politics and other entities is not to be underestimated. Back in the 1970s, a far less technologically oriented social network (but one that was just as viral) caused a precipitous drop in sales of Bubble Yum in the New York area. I was 12 at the time, growing up in New York City, and the rumor was that Bubble Yum had spider eggs in it. Having no interest in blowing bubbles with spider eggs, it took an ad campaign on behalf of Bubble Yum manufacturer LifeSavers Co. to convince me it was OK to put Bubble Yum in my mouth again (Whew! What would life be without Bubble Yum?).

If I were an executive at one of the brands that's sponsoring the Olympics, like Coca-Cola, McDonalds, UPS, Staples, or Visa, I would be keeping my finger on the pulse of the major social networks to see if and when public opinion might start to sway against my brand. Today, thanks to the Internet, the social networks are way bigger than the New York City school system and the risks to a global brand could be far greater if those social networks are able to successfully draw a connection between sponsorship of the Olympics (directly, through TV advertising, etc.) and endorsement of China's policies.

Though they are no strangers to controversial spotlights, I'll bet there are government officials in China wishing that they never thought to bring the Olympics to Beijing. Ten years ago, who would have thought that such an intertwining of sports and technology would empower individuals like you and me to really make a difference?

The next time you see Vint Cerf or Sir Tim Berners-Lee, be sure to thank them for their achievements.