Case Study Google In ChinaEssay Preview: Case Study Google In ChinaReport this essayCase Study Google In ChinaCase Study Google in ChinaTo keep the continued growth as the first Internet searcher provider in the world, Google wished the entry in the Chinese market. With the tight censoring of China nevertheless, Google confronted several legal, cultural, and ethical challenges. Examining a study of the case for the Hill (2009) with the challenges Google faced together with several roles that the Chinese government played he will emphasize the difficulties found in the global business. The completion of the review of study of the case summing up the strategic and operational challenges of Google that enter on the Chinese market forward illustrates the challenges of the global business.
Legal, Cultural, and Ethical ChallengesGoogle established a service in the Chinese language in 2000 done so that it was working inside the United States and it was so it began the extension in China in 2004. Google faced many oppositions and legal challenges of opening in China, and the most significant obstacle was the strict well censoring of the Government of China. Even when Google handled the service of the United States, the Chinese government censured the results of search for his citizens; nevertheless, to begin to work in China, Google had to be in accordance with the rules of censoring of China. The Google also confronted legal changes with the employment of Chinese citizens and maintenance of a commercial position in the country.
Culturally, Google confronted a lot of challenges and the direction of the Chinese personnel. Although not covered thoroughly in the study of the case, the opening of operations in any new country needs the cultural formation to understand like to handle the personnel appropriately. The Google also confronted culturally challenges with the censoring because it was culturally acceptable to censure the content in China, whereas in the United States, the censoring was the taboo.
The different sites in the censoring also created ethical challenges for Google. The opponents of the censoring supported that Google was acting immorally allowing the Chinese government to censure the content only of that time Google might work on the market. The opponents in the study of the case also indicated that Google wanted to change the freedom of the information for the possibility to increase profit on a new market. The followers of Google supported that the supply of the service of Google is more restrictive to the Chinese people that the censoring. To help to relieve ethical worries, Google fixed when this blocked the content at the bottom of every page then the user would realize.
Role of the GovernmentThe government of China redeemed a critical role in the study of the case of Google. The made censoring to expire for the government created the primary legal, cultural, and ethical challenges. The Chinese government did not do the waiver in his position of which information Google might allow and this way he forced Google to adapt oneself to his regulation or rules to lead the business in the country. Even before Google was opening in China, the government already leaked the content to which his citizens might have access, and this position has not changed. For the lack of appetite of the government of negotiating or compromising, Google had to take the difficult decision in if the potential profit in China deserved the ethical perceived commitment. After great consideration, Google compromised really and information of censor to work
The Supreme Court of China was the most important court to examine the case. It recognized the ethical basis behind the censorship and the political right of a government to decide what information is relevant to the subject matter at hand, especially to decide when a company might provide its users with a better understanding about some of its users’ behaviour.
There is not the capacity of the Chinese government to ignore the content or censor it in every case, but it does not take into account the political rights of users, particularly those in China. It has been pointed out that under Section 508 of the Penal Code, which prohibits “suspected and suspected illegal acts”, for example, if a society does not act in accordance with an expressed law like this by its act of censoring content, it can enforce a case of copyright on the country rather than taking its own legal action.
The Chinese Constitution also made it permissible to request information that a “ministry of the federal People’s Republic of China or of a state department or a political party” provide by way of communication, e-mail and social media. This information may include the name of your friend, website address, phone number, a photograph and a link to a website to which this service was previously available.
Internet censorship are not illegal in China or the Chinese people is free to participate in any form of online activities in accordance with a law or policy.
Many people believe that in the case of Google, what matters is the content displayed on Google. The fact that most of the information displayed by Google can be found in the Google search and search result is due to an extremely limited use. The data that this information receives is important because most people not only do not know what is going on or what to find or do not know much about the activities that are taking place on the web, but they too also do not know what they are going to find or do not even know who the people on whom they are working are.
In my opinion, the only thing that has prevented this situation from being solved is the failure of the Internet to adapt itself to Chinese interests or politics. Our democratic system as a whole is completely dependent on the actions of our governments and the public. Although in many cases government actions in China are more often the result of the government’s interests, they take the form of decisions by the public that violate the human rights of each individual.
As a result, there is a growing consensus between the people in the Chinese democratic system and government on what role the Internet is allowed and should play. Although it is true that many people can participate, I believe that even the ruling party in Chinese may lack the capacity to stop this issue unless it first adopts a different response than the current ruling.
Moreover, in the context of China, censorship are not illegal but they are not the only way to curb public access to government content or social media activity. For example, Google’s activities on the internet in China do not require an Internet service provider to provide any information about users or people they engage in.
If Google should decide that only it is “responsible and prudent” in deciding censorship against one country, it could end in the same way that it has set the rules for censorship to become illegal in China on its own. In these circumstances, one may conclude that Google was a pioneer in freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, and for this reason it cannot be said that Google should have done anything wrong.
As a practical