Upload
jridinbig
View
78
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
JESSICA HAWKINS ATG510 SU2 2012Week 3 Case Analysis Write-up: Google in China
Question 1 Response – Prior to the launch of Google.cn, what factors should Google have
considered in reaching their decision to comply with Chinese government censorship laws?
One factor Google should have considered is the financial perspective. From a financial
perspective, China represented for Google a dynamic and fast-growing, though increasingly
competitive, market (Wilson, Ramos and Harvey, 2007). According to Google’s 2006
projections, the Chinese internet market was expected to grow from 105 million users
to 250 million users by 2010 (Schrage, 2006). Another factor Google should have considered is
ethics. Google’s decision to self-censor Google.cn attracted significant ethical criticism at the
time. The company’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” and prior to entering China, Google had
successfully set itself apart from other technology giants, becoming a company trusted by
millions of users to protect and store their personal information. The choice to accept self-
censorship, and the discussion and debate generated by this choice, forced Google to re-examine
itself as a company and forced the international community to reconsider the implications of
censorship (Wilson, Ramos and Harvey, 2007). Another factor to consider was if the decision
was in total agreement with Google’s mission and policies. Google senior policy counsel
Andrew McLaughlin knew removing search results was inconsistent with Google’s mission, but
also believed that providing no information at all was more inconsistent with their mission.
Google’s objective is to make the world’s information accessible to everyone, everywhere, all
the time. It is a mission that expresses two fundamental commitments: (a) First, their business
commitment to satisfy the interests of users, and by doing so to build a leading company in a
highly competitive industry; and (b) Second, their policy conviction that expanding access to
1
JESSICA HAWKINS ATG510 SU2 2012Week 3 Case Analysis Write-up: Google in China
information to anyone who wants it will make our world a better, more informed, and freer
place. In such a situation, they have to add to the balance a third fundamental commitment: (c)
Be responsive to local conditions (Schrage, 2006).
Question 2 Response – Assess Dr. Schmidt's statement "We actually did an evil scale and
decided that not to serve at all was worse evil." Was Google being evil?
In my opinion, NO, Google was not being evil. They were accommodating a country based
on their rules, and the internet users had limited access before Google.cn was launched. It
was definitely more about business than evil. Google made the right decision to build a
business in China a few years ago, and it's making the right decision now, by threatening to pull
out of the country if China doesn’t relax its censorship demands (Blodget, 2010). The company
concluded that it was better, for the sake of China’s millions of Internet users, to stay and offer
an experience as rich as possible, while transparently informing the users that they were not
getting the full experience (Tripathi, 2010). Google believed that it was against their policy to
censor information from the Chinese population but also that it was even more against their
policy to cease all internet search engines in China. The Chinese government blocked content
that could have been a potential risk to their country. That is the only information I agree with
Google blocking. Some examples of content that was blocked by Google are information
pertaining to Falun Gong, which is a banned spiritual movement in China, any site on Tibetan
opposition to the Chinese government, most links to human rights organizations and Tiananmen
Square commemoration sites (Keen, 2006). I actually think the Chinese government has gone too
far in blocking content and interfering with internet search terms. Supporters of Google’s actions
2
JESSICA HAWKINS ATG510 SU2 2012Week 3 Case Analysis Write-up: Google in China
in China maintain that Google has not violated traditional business ethical standards by
censoring anti-Chinese information. The main reasoning for this statement centers on the fact
that Google is helping the average Chinese internet user gain more access to valuable
information from all over the world.
3
JESSICA HAWKINS ATG510 SU2 2012Week 3 Case Analysis Write-up: Google in China
REFERENCES
1. Blodget, Henry. (2010, January). Google Has Played the China Situation Brilliantly.
Business Insider. Retrieved from
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-01-13/tech/30095881_1_chinese-internet-users-china-
site-chinese-government
2. Keen, Andrew. (2006, May 3). Google in the Garden of Good and Evil; how the search-
engine giant moved beyond mere morality. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved from
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/176wtlbv.asp
3. McHugh, Josh. (2004). Google vs. Evil. Wired. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr.html
4. Schrage, E. (2006, February 15). Testimony: The Internet in China. [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html#!/
2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html
5. Tripathi, Salil.(2010, January). Google China Decision: 'remarkable, courageous and far-
reaching'. Institute for Human Rights and Business. Retrieved from
http://www.ihrb.org/commentary/staff/google_china_decision_remarkable_courageous_and_far-
reaching.htm
4