Question 1 Response – Prior to the launch of Google.cn, what factors should Google have considered in reaching their decision to comply with Chinese government censorship laws?
One factor Google should have considered is the financial perspective. From a financial perspective, China represented for Google a dynamic and fast-growing, though increasingly competitive, market (Wilson, Ramos and Harvey, 2007). According to Google’s 2006 projections, the Chinese internet market was expected to grow from 105 million users to 250 million users by 2010 (Schrage, 2006). Another factor Google should have considered is ethics. Google’s decision to self-censor Google.cn attracted significant ethical criticism at the time. The company’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” and prior to entering China, Google had successfully set itself apart from other technology giants, becoming a company trusted by millions of users to protect and store their personal information. The choice to accept self-censorship, and the discussion and debate generated by this choice, forced Google to re-examine itself as a company and forced the international community to reconsider the implications of censorship (Wilson, Ramos and Harvey, 2007). Another factor to consider was if the decision was in total agreement with Google’s mission and policies. Google senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin knew removing search results was inconsistent with Google’s mission, but also believed that providing no information at all was more inconsistent with their mission. Google’s objective is to make the world’s information accessible to everyone, everywhere, all the time. It is a mission that expresses two fundamental commitments: (a) First, their business commitment to satisfy the interests of users, and by doing so to build a leading company in a highly competitive industry; and (b) Second, their policy conviction that expanding access to information to anyone who wants it will make our world a better, more informed, and freer place. In such a situation, they have to add to the balance a third fundamental commitment: (c) Be responsive to local conditions (Schrage, 2006).
Question 2 Response – Assess Dr. Schmidt's statement "We actually did an evil scale and decided that not to serve at all was worse evil." Was Google being evil?
In my opinion, NO, Google was not being evil. They were accommodating a country based on their rules, and the internet users had limited access before Google.cn was launched. It was definitely more about business than evil. Google made the right decision to build a business in China a few years ago, and it's making the right decision now, by threatening to pull out of the country if China doesn’t relax its censorship demands (Blodget, 2010). The company concluded that it was better, for the sake of China’s millions of Internet users, to stay and offer an experience as rich as possible, while transparently informing the users that they were not getting the full experience (Tripathi, 2010). Google believed that it was against their policy to censor information from the Chinese population but also that it was even more against their policy to cease all internet search engines in China. The Chinese government blocked content that could have been a potential risk to their country. That is the only information I agree with Google blocking. Some examples of content that was blocked by Google are information pertaining to Falun Gong, which is a banned spiritual movement in China, any site on Tibetan opposition to the Chinese government, most links to human rights organizations and Tiananmen Square commemoration sites (Keen, 2006). I actually think the Chinese government has gone too far in blocking content and interfering with internet search terms. Supporters of Google’s actions in China maintain that Google has not violated traditional business ethical standards by censoring anti-Chinese information. The main reasoning for this statement centers on the fact that Google is helping the average Chinese internet user gain more access to valuable information from all over the world.

REFERENCES
Blodget, Henry. (2010, January). Google Has Played the China Situation Brilliantly.
Business Insider. Retrieved from http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-01-13/tech/30095881_1_chinese-internet-users-china-site-chinese-government
Keen, Andrew. (2006, May 3). Google in the Garden of Good and Evil; how the search- engine giant moved beyond mere morality. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved from http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/176wtlbv.asp
McHugh, Josh. (2004). Google vs. Evil. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr.html Schrage, E. (2006, February 15). Testimony: The Internet in China. [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html#!/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html
Tripathi, Salil.(2010, January). Google China Decision: 'remarkable, courageous and far- reaching'. Institute for Human Rights and Business. Retrieved from
http://www.ihrb.org/commentary/staff/google_china_decision_remarkable_courageous_and_far-reaching.htm