Since its creation, the Internet has continuously grown in importance as a means to obtain information. This is due in part because it is not censored like the rest of America’s mainstream media, such as television, newspapers, and the radio. Nevertheless, the issue of censorship has raised many controversial issues, not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. In the debate by Intelligence2 (2008): Google Violates its Don’t be Evil Motto, it is argued that Google has violated its self declared motto that it wouldn’t be evil, thus putting people’s interest before their own corporate financial interests. While Google has committed certain questionable acts I do not believe they have violated their motto. Harry Lewis, Randal Picker, and Siva Vaidhyanathan argue that this violation is exposed in Goggle’s agreement to cooperate with the Chinese government in exchange of a larger monetary market and in its advertisement market (Intelligence2, 2008). Nevertheless, Esther Dyson, Jim Harper, and Jeff Jarvis argue that while such actions have occurred, the good it has brought to the over all population exemplifies their don’t be evil motto. To begin with, Harry Lewis, Randal Picker, and Siva Vaidhyanathan argue that the violation of the Google motto is demonstrated in their agreement to cooperate with the Chinese government in exchange of a larger monetary market (Intelligence2, 2008). They discuss that the Chinese government has allowed Google to enter their country with the condition that they censor much of the material on the Internet. Google, being an American company should have said no and upheld the first amendment of the United States Constitution. This is a reason that has led many people to classify Google as... ... middle of paper ... ...n argued that by Goggle’s agreement to collaborate with the Chinese government in censoring the Internet and in its advertisement market they are violating their “don’t be evil” motto (Intelligence2, 2008). Nevertheless I agree with Esther Dyson, Jim Harper, and Jeff Jarvis that while such actions have occurred Google seeks to improve the information of people throughout the world. Google is willingly to sacrifice its interests, in this case its reputation, for the over all good of the world upholding its don’t be evil motto. Works Cited Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., & Schubert, L. (2012). The Irony of Democracy (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Group. Hill, Steven.(2006).10 Steps to Repair American Democracy.Sausalito, CA: PoliPointPress. Intelligence2 (2008).Google Violates its Don’t be Evil Motto.The Rosenkranz Foundation/ Intelligence Squared US
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Deva, Surya. “Corporate Complicity in Internet Censorship in China: Who Cares for the Global Compact or the Global Online Freedom Act?” The George Washington International Law Review. Washington, DC: The George Washington Intl Law Review. 2007. Web. 31 Jan., 2011.
Works Cited Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future – Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights.
Barry, Brian. "Is Democracy Special?" in Philosophy, Politics, & Society, 5th Series, ed. Peter Laslett & James Fishkin. Hew Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
Why should the reader care about the impact of technology on market morals? Rising prevalence of technological products raises a concern for the increasing power of technological corporations such as Google. It affects our life especially when the intensifying competition drives corporations to gain comparative advantage over their rivals by spying on their users. Although internet is still a relatively new field, internet-based companies have already experienced countless lawsuits regarding the intrusion of privacy. As consumers, our growing dependence on technology allows these corporations to know and control every move we take. The section about collecting users’ data under Google’s terms of service exemplifies privacy invasion, but the most alarming part is that we do not care about it for most of the times. We regard privacy less important than the technology we are able to use by simply agreeing to give the data away. It is time we ask ourselves whether technology companies have gone too far in their reach of market domination and whether it “reduce the capacity of democracy to respond to citizens’ concerns” (Reich
Google is the largest search engine across the globe, which has significantly transformed the use of the Internet as an information source. The influence of Google in Internet use as information source is evident in the fact that by June 2010, it accounted for more than 70 percent of total Internet searches in America. In addition to its success and profitability in the global market, Google is renowned as a highly ethical company as demonstrated in its corporate philosophy features. However, the firm’s behavior during the launch of its China-based search engine in 2006 generated huge skepticism from the United States government and several human rights organizations (Baker & Tang, p.2). Since the launch of Google’s Chinese search engine, the company complied with China’s censorship regulations by deciding to filter out terms that are considered politically sensitive. This decision attracted criticism from political leaders and human rights activists who accused Google of betraying its adopted ethical standards by ignoring the essence of freedom of expression and information access. As a result, Google faced a dilemma involving the clash between law and ethics. In the subsequent years, Google reacted to the dilemma by changing its rhetoric strategies in efforts to respond to the changing needs.
Political, economic, and technological are three factors of the external environment that Google must identify with doing an external analysis. Political factor can profit Googles growth through different markets. Chinese’s and US government placed an obstacle for any growth that Google had in these markets. According to Google 2009, “They viewed Google as a monopoly and request authority to monitor its activities. The pressure of the government provides additional problems with copyright and privacy issues. As the technology expands, it offers more problems for Google. “New...
Christiano, Tom. "Democracy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 27 July 2006. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
China, also, will be able to achieve economic and technological advantages by working with Google while still controlling public opinion. By restricting Google by censorship, with minimal compromises on some services, China will be able to affirm its status as an independent actor in the global marketplace as well. Work Cited:.. James S. O’Rourke IV, Brynn Harris, Allison Ogilvy: Google in China: government censorship and corporate reputation Journal of Business Strategy Vol. 28.
...oogle’s profits soar. By failing to ask Google, “What’s in it for you?” we demonstrate flawed reasoning ability.
This report will describe the history of government regulations and FTC. How that applied to Google search and personal privacy. The changes made from the settlement between Google and the FTC, the difference Google's practices and policies from before the settlement and after the settlement, and the current demands and expectations from current and vocal Google users. The report will also draw a conclusion from the findings and will determine if additional regulations are needed or if the regulations currently in place are sufficient.
Levy, Steven, Brad Stone, and Peter Suciu. "All Eyes On Google. (Cover Story)." Newsweek 143.13 (2004):
Despite existing laws and privacy enhancing technological methods, the US is progressively taking full advantage of its dominant position not just as the home of companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter but also acknowledging jurisdiction on all websites registered in the US. Therefore, countries such Brazil, Iran, Russia, India and China “are now challenging United States hegemony of the Internet and even calling for the creation of a new governing body to oversee Internet policy” (Brooke, 2012, p.245).
Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic. (n.d.). The Atlantic — News and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and life – TheAtlantic.com. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/