1. -5791200-857240012763505715000lefttop00<br />Summary<br />Fox News on July 29, 2010, published an article titled, ”Google Says China Blocks Access, Again,” by Elizabeth Dalzeil that enlightens the world toward the relationship that is brewing between Google and the communist country China. China is taking additional steps towards censorship by employing there “Great Firewall” to stop what their “citizens can see and read on the internet.” This impacted not only search engine users but also, Google’s Mobile resulting in losses due to advertising revenue. A relationship that is foregoing since Google took a stance against the communist country in January 2010, after discovering China’s ability to hack their servers and exercise their control over the company. Dalzeil discuss the trickery behind Google’s actions to redirect internet users to the Hong Kong’s search engine YP.com where they can continue to enjoy the benefits of internet freedom. There is speculation on how China will retaliate to Google’s “perceived defiance” of their laws and whether such actions would discourage technology companies from operating in the region. Despite China’s 400 million internet users, they only account for approximately, “250 million to $600 million of Google's projected $28 billion in revenue this year.” As tension rise between the transactional company and the communist nation many await the final outcome of this saga. <br />Integration and Illustration<br />Imagine if businesses and governments existed with reverse roles in which it became the businesses responsibility to “protect and promote the public good within society”. In such an instance, the elements of public policy would be difficult to obtain especially in a communist country where there are few public policy goals that are aimed at equal opportunity for all citizens. A communist government action to censorship their citizens raises questions whether the government is dealing with problems in a collective manner? Google’s attempt to aid China’s Citizens toward social prosperity led to China enforcing penalties by using tools to reinforce their government’s policy. Such enforcement is China’s attempt to encourage Google to act in ways that aligns with their policy goals. <br />The ethical argument between Google and China is not whether there should be tougher regulations on Google but rather the current regulations are necessary. The Utilitarian argument coincides with both sides as both powers intentions appear for the greater good of the China’s Citizens. Despite China’s government supporting their own special interest they truly believe censorship is protecting their economic prosperity. In figure 1.0, by Elizabeth Dalziel, the Chinese personify how closely they are watching by poking their heads through the Google’s Chinese Logo as they watch others at the Chinese Debut in Beijing. For years, Google agreed to self-regulations until January 2010, when they decided not to support the self-interest of the government but the needs of their customers after finding out the Chinese Government was spying. The colossal presence of Google was not intimidated by government power as they are a Natural technological Monopoly that even the Chinese government is unwilling to break free; “That compromise paid off three weeks ago when China’s regulators renewed Google’s internet License in the country for another year”. The level of government participation is high while their cultural acceptability remains lower as the government exercises the powerful twin mechanism to the point where there is an unbalance relationship 428625077660500between government, business and society.<br />42862501816100 Figure 1.0: Ap photo/Elizabeth Dalziel SEQ Ap_photo/Elizabeth_Dalziel ARABIC 100 Figure 1.0: Ap photo/Elizabeth Dalziel SEQ Ap_photo/Elizabeth_Dalziel ARABIC 1China’s regulation is aimed at any company that is in disagreement with the lifestyle they have chosen for their citizens. Google supports deregulation and view the policies in place as just a cost of doing business. China exercise economic regulations to control the allocation of information resources provided by Google. Just as China upheld their egotistic view toward social regulation they believe it is important to protect consumers from the harm that can be caused by people obtaining information freedom. A cost-benefit analysis exists for both the business and the government as they both seek separate interest. The costs associated with regulations are the risks that either Google will leave China or will the communist regime say enough is enough. Or will Google consider the revenue loss against the possible benefits of advertising to an economy of that magnitude. The benefits of deregulation are a more informed economy, networking, and democracy within technological constraints. Both sides experience the spill-over effects of one another’s’ actions leading to timid relations between the two powers. <br />Since January 2010, there are concerns on whether there exist a collaborative partnership between Google and China. Are they working in an accommodating manner or are the “two powers working to seek results that benefit both society and business?” This is the question that remains unanswered as both seek opposite objectives which may potentially collapse their relationship. The basis of their relationship stems from their societal values and customs. As China asserts a greater influence over Google, many believe that this partnership will lead the two to working in arm’s length. As a result, China must consider alternatives after the year agreement to find a different search engine as other technological companies may shy from the nation. The society of China has no voice and the absent of community influence is the justification for social welfare and reform.<br />Major Concepts and Definitions <br />To work at arm’s length means the government –business goals differ to a point where their differences result in an accommodating relationship rather than the collaborative partnership necessary to work in a collective manner. To seek a collaborative partnership, there must exist mutually beneficial goals with government-business working openly toward common adjectives. Many businesses feel there are Legitimacy issues when dealing with foreign governments that branch from the government’s Public policy, their inputs, goals, and tools they used to force acceptability. Public Policy is a plan of action by the government to achieve a broad goal that affects a majority of people in a Nation. Their inputs are the pressures use to address the problem such as censorship. Their goals are usually broad meaning; they affect a large amount of individuals. The public policy tools involve combinations of incentives and penalties to foster good behavior from businesses. Such enforcement government may seek through regulations which are simply rules of conduct for people and business. There is a thin line between economic and social policies-regulations, or financial and ethical decisions that lead to business-government encountering ethical arguments. As a result, negative externalities occur which are the spillover effect to unattended costs. For time will tell the final outcome between Google and China.<br />
