- May 21, 2020
Google Dilemma in China
GoogleDilemma in China
GoogleDilemma in China
Thereason Google quit China is a perfect example of the challenges thatnew cooperation’s face in foreign countries. In the year 2010,after a fierce entangle with the government of China, Google decidedto exit the country by directing the Hong Kong traffic to uncensoredaccess to information which automatically led to its closure.Google’s dilemma in China gives a perfect case study of how localpolicies created and supported by the governing bodies hinder theefficient access of information. Since its establishment in China,Google has complied with the censorship policies of the Chinesegovernment. However, scholars and human right activists have arguedthat censoring of certain sites hinders the Chinese population fromaccess to information and undermines the quality and purpose ofGoogle. Therefore, this discussion will focus on evaluating thesignificance of the case study by analyzing its effects and impact onthe residents of China. The paper provides the expected results ofuncensored access to information as well as the reasons for thecompliance of Google.cn.
WhenGoogle.cn was developed in China, it complied with the censorshippolicies of the country. The censorship policies of China impliedlimited access to some sites of information. Google is a universalprovider of information. Apart from business, the company has threegoals namely, to gratify the interests of consumers, widen access todata as well as be approachable to local circumstances. In compliancewith the local policies of the Chinese government, Google decided tooffer limited services (Tang, 2012). Despite this affecting theefficiency of Google’s service provision, the company wasdetermined to serve the rapidly growing population of Internet usersin China. This was until the year 2010 when Google experienced acyber-attack directed at its intellectual property that included theGmail accounts of several human rights activists. Prompted by theoffensive, Google lifted its censorship and allowed unlimited accessto the high population of China, resulting in its shut down.
Thequestion therefore remains whether Google be allowed to provideunrestricted access to information or not. Human Right activistTimothy Kumar of the Amnesty International unswervingly blamed thetechnology firms of working together with foreign governments todevelop and comply with restriction laws at the cost of human rights(Tang, 2012). The social activists argued that several companies suchas Cisco Systems and Sun Microsystems have assisted the government indeveloping the infrastructure that supports the censorship of theinternet. The defender went further to single out Yahoo, Microsoftand Google companies as multinational corporations that understandthe notion of human rights yet comply with the censorship policiesthat hinder the access of information in individual countries. In hisargument, he emphasized on the role of IT in the society. He arguedthat complying with the policies to hinder access to information is adirect act against human rights and the freedom of information, whichis what these companies stand for.
Thecensorship of particular sites hinders the access of information bythe residents. Human activists have regarded the censorship ofindividual sites by Google, as an act against the human rights aswell as the freedom of information. Although foreign companies mustadapt to the local laws and policies, the access of information iscritical in regards to human rights as well as other economic andsocial benefits (Tang, 2012).
Inconclusion, this paper discussed the case study involving Googleoperations in China and the uncensored access to information. Thepaper concludes that while data access may be censored in somecountries, there is the need to observe human rights. Google isplanning to head back to China. Apart from a massive population,which is, double the number of internet users in the U.S., Google hasa responsibility to provide services to the global community.
Tang, J. S. (2012). Google`s Dilemma in China. Hong Kong: Chapel Hill.