Google initially argued that filtering Internet content is less damaging than riot making its search engine available in the Chinese market. Do you agree?
I agree with Google, as I think that complying with Chinese rules and filtering Internet content is less damaging than riot making its search engine available in the Chinese market, as it brings fewer problems with Chinese government, fewer conflicts, and less financial losses. Furthermore, Google’s decision secures its position in China and allows the company operating there, while the riot can lead to Google’s exit from Chinese market without any possibilities to return.
Why do you think Google has gotten more criticism for operating in China than other U.S. high-tech firms?
Google differs from other American high-tech firms operating in China. When Google went public, its creators proclaimed it as “a company that is trustworthy and interested in the public good” (Thompson, 2006). However, when Google started to comply with Chinese censorship rules, it violated its own policy, as good relations with Chinese repressive regime did not mean trust and the public good, and violated its motto “Don’t be evil” (Johnson, 2013, p. 405). The violation of original Google position and the company’s pride, indeed, resulted in more criticism and accusations.
Use the steps of integrative social contracts theory of the HKH decision-making process to determine whether Google and other American high-tech firms should participate in the Great Firewall of China. What do you conclude?
According to integrative social contracts theory of the HKH decision-making process, Google and other American high-tech companies should not participate in the Great Firewall of China. The theory aims to recognize such universal ethical norms as the right to freedom of speech and free access to information. These norms allow people to live in a global society. Censorship and spying for Internet access of citizens are considered to be illegal. China violates these norms and, thus, prevents the Chinese nation from being a part of the society. Google and other American high-tech companies should not support this practice and, thus, should not participate in the Great Firewall of China.
Should the U.S. government prevent American technology companies from working with repressive regimes in China and elsewhere?
Working with repressive regimes in China and elsewhere and complying with their rules, American technology companies help to support and promote these regimes and in such a way violate the rights of free speech and free access to information. The prevention of the work of American companies in China would show American attitude to repressive regimes but at the same time, would result in significant financial losses, as the Chinese market is financially attractive and profitable. Thus, the full prevention is not advantageous; however, the U.S. government, American technology companies, and other interested organizations united in the Global Network Initiative could develop the code of ethics in the issues of Internet censorship and privacy to regulate the proper work of American technology companies in China and similar countries.
Is Internet access to information a human right or a privilege?
I think that Internet access to information is a human right. People often argue if Internet access to information is fundamental human right or civil right granted by the government, but it is important to perceive it as a human right and to make it accessible for more and more people. Indeed, the Internet is closely related to the freedom of information and, thus, becomes a natural right in democratic countries, but the problem still remains crucial in the rest of the world. I think that if people stop perceive Internet access to information as a human right and start to see it as a privilege, the government will be freer in placing restrictions, granting Internet access, and controlling the nation in whole. The Internet is fundamental to connection and communication and becomes even more fundamental with time. Its availability is important for the modern world and, thus, should be perceived as the human right the same way as the right for clean water and medical treatment.
Is Internet censorship ever justified? What topics, if any, should be filtered?
I think that sometimes censorship can be justified. For instance, in cases of children censorship or violation of religious beliefs like in the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. In my opinion, children should not have access to pornography and violence; furthermore, censorship should filter child pornography, sites that belittle specific groups of people and violate feelings of religious people, and sites that support and promote criminal activities or other illegal issues. In other cases, excessive censorship deprives the rights of the nation.
References
Johnson, C. E. (2013). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Thompson, C. (2006). Google’s China problem (and China’s Google problem). The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html
