CSC 379 SUM2008:Week 4, Debate: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
Line 7: Line 7:
If Google did not comply, they would have several options.  The '''no''' side can argue for one (or possibly more) of the following options:
If Google did not comply, they would have several options.  The '''no''' side can argue for one (or possibly more) of the following options:


- Pull out of China
* Pull out of China
- Try to bend China’s censorship rules
* Try to bend China’s censorship rules
- Provoke a confrontation, believing that their popularity would forestall a total ban.
* Provoke a confrontation, believing that their popularity would forestall a total ban.
- Yet another approach.
* Yet another approach.


The '''yes''' side should be prepared to argue that any of these options would be unwise or unrealistic.
The '''yes''' side should be prepared to argue that any of these options would be unwise or unrealistic.

Latest revision as of 21:26, 30 July 2008

In order to operate in China, Google is required to adhere to the Chinese government’s rules on censorship of content. Many Chinese use proxy connections to get past the censorship, risking steep penalties if caught viewing an unauthorized Web site. Examine the ethical implications of Google’s compliance in preparation to debate the following question:

Should Google comply with Chinese censorship rules?

Because Google is now complying, the no side will go first.

If Google did not comply, they would have several options. The no side can argue for one (or possibly more) of the following options:

  • Pull out of China
  • Try to bend China’s censorship rules
  • Provoke a confrontation, believing that their popularity would forestall a total ban.
  • Yet another approach.

The yes side should be prepared to argue that any of these options would be unwise or unrealistic.

Helpful Links:

No:

Yes: