Public Policy or Domestic Disturbance
RUNNING HEAD: Public Policy Paper
China’s Policy: Google’s Disturbance
China’s Policy and Google’s Disturbance
The Chinese population is governing under the ideology of communism. In such a society, the government controls social and political order. Under communist governance, the government controls the lives of its people. Their social activities are in most cases, censored. The government who dominates decision-making decides upon healthcare and other social elements. China refers to this control as “guided opinion.” Google on the other hand derived from a moderate society where people are free to do “almost” anything that they desire. It is clear and convincing that Google felt the need to exercise power without consciousness that China’s policy on search engines and socialization.
Google is more familiar with cultures such as Americans where we are able to log onto the internet and access any possibilities. Because Americans are governing under a democratic political structure, there are hardly any limits in regards to search engines and mass media. America exercises the right to speech and freedom of press. We able to watch programs on television that some nations can only imagine as the realities of their government will not permit. Another important point to view when surveying this conflict between Google and China is that fact that here in America, networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, online chats and so on are actually incorporated into tradition.
Americans are able to access these networks from a variety of electronics devices and are logged on at times for an entire twenty-four hours period. This is not the same in China where citizens are forbidden to practice such social addictive behavior, In modern times, China censors everything from the traditional print press to domestic and foreign Internet sites; from cell phone text messages to social networking services; from online chat rooms to blogs, films and e-mail.
China’s Policy: Google’s Disturbance
China’s Policy and Google’s Disturbance
The Chinese population is governing under the ideology of communism. In such a society, the government controls social and political order. Under communist governance, the government controls the lives of its people. Their social activities are in most cases, censored. The government who dominates decision-making decides upon healthcare and other social elements. China refers to this control as “guided opinion.” Google on the other hand derived from a moderate society where people are free to do “almost” anything that they desire. It is clear and convincing that Google felt the need to exercise power without consciousness that China’s policy on search engines and socialization.
Google is more familiar with cultures such as Americans where we are able to log onto the internet and access any possibilities. Because Americans are governing under a democratic political structure, there are hardly any limits in regards to search engines and mass media. America exercises the right to speech and freedom of press. We able to watch programs on television that some nations can only imagine as the realities of their government will not permit. Another important point to view when surveying this conflict between Google and China is that fact that here in America, networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, online chats and so on are actually incorporated into tradition.
Americans are able to access these networks from a variety of electronics devices and are logged on at times for an entire twenty-four hours period. This is not the same in China where citizens are forbidden to practice such social addictive behavior, In modern times, China censors everything from the traditional print press to domestic and foreign Internet sites; from cell phone text messages to social networking services; from online chat rooms to blogs, films and e-mail.
References: Barbara Demick, & David Pierson. (2010, March 26). THE WORLD; Open and shut in China; Beijing wants to let in the outside world, but the Google case shows there are limits. Los Angeles Times,p. A.3. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from Los Angeles Times (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2006. Ury, William. Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.