Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Zoom Deleted Events Discussing Zoom 'Censorship' (buzzfeednews.com) 113

Zoom shut down a series of events meant to discuss what organizers called "censorship" by the company. From a report: The events were planned for Oct. 23 and were organized in response to a previous cancellation by Zoom of a San Francisco State University talk by Leila Khaled, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terror organization in the US. Khaled is best known for highjacking two planes, one in 1969 and one in 1970. Zoom told the Verge at the time that the Sept. 23 talk was in violation of the company's terms of service. The Verge also reported that the action was in response to pressure by Jewish and Israel lobby groups, such as the Lawfare Project.

Following the Sept. 23 cancellation, a group of academics organized a series of events across the country, as well as in Canada and the UK, which were meant to highlight the issue. "Campuses across North America are joining in the campaign to resist corporate and university silencing of Palestinian narratives and Palestinian voices," said the day of action's event description, which was meant to be held on Oct. 23. The follow-up events did not include Khaled presenting. The event held in part by New York University, which was canceled the day of, included a compilation of her previous statements, according to a blog post on the incident.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zoom Deleted Events Discussing Zoom 'Censorship'

Comments Filter:
  • Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday October 26, 2020 @11:10AM (#60650510) Homepage Journal

    Don't rely on for-profit companies to facilitate your speech. They do so at their pleasure and will cut you off in a heartbeat if it's profitable to do so.

    • Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deKernel ( 65640 ) on Monday October 26, 2020 @11:35AM (#60650626)

      You can replace "for-profit companies" and replace with "academic" for the same results. And yes, universities in the U.S. are "for profit" even though they claim they aren't. Just look at how they squash anything that isn't pro-liberal.

      • Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Monday October 26, 2020 @11:57AM (#60650732) Journal

        Statistically, less than they squash anything that isn't pro-conservative:

        https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]

        • by Entrope ( 68843 )

          Have you looked at the political leanings [wikipedia.org] of most university faculties? In recent years, those ratios range from 5:1 up to about 7:1 liberal (or "far left") to conservative, so a ratio of 3:1 in firings suggests there is still anti-conservative bias.

          Looking only at the political valence of speech is also inadequate -- were professors fired for mocking the idea of microagressions [www.jamesgmartin.center] or for assaulting a journalist [washingtonpost.com]? There's a rather big legal difference between cases like those.

          • Have you looked at the political leanings [wikipedia.org] of most university faculties? In recent years, those ratios range from 5:1 up to about 7:1 liberal (or "far left") to conservative, so a ratio of 3:1 in firings suggests there is still anti-conservative bias.

            Middle ground fallacy.

            • by Entrope ( 68843 )

              The middle ground fallacy claims that the middle ground is correct by virtue of being the middle ground.

              In contrast, I pointed out that conservative professors are something like twice as likely to be fired as liberals or far-left professors. That's a direct rebuttal of your misleadingly incomplete statistical claim.

              • You're arguing that there should be an equal likelihood based on the assumption that both groups are equally likely to commit an offense, that sounds like arguing that the middle ground is correct by virtue of being the middle ground.

                • by Entrope ( 68843 )

                  No, that's an assumption that there is no relevant a priori difference between those two groups. Do you think there is?

                  • Not quite, but if you assume that the window of acceptable viewpoints is not set by middle ground fallacy, then it can be argued that one group is inherently more likely to offend. As an extreme example, if you have a N**i who says that all Jews should be genocided and a liberal who says no Jews should be genocided, the middle ground position that will result in an equal proportion of firings assuming an equal tendency to offend is that Jews should get Thanos-snapped to half of their current numbers. Obviou

        • Those statistics only show that liberal professors are more likely to say horrible things that get them fired. Which really just supports the idea that if you want to find unhinged extremists who promote hateful views, look to the left.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Except no, that's been shown repeatedly to be complete bullshit.

        I know, it hurts when you aren't able to play the poor little victim, but academics don't squash things that aren't "pro-liberal". They actively debate them. And if you get your ass handed to you in a debate (like this!) it isn't your rights being violated, it's you being shown to be wrong, as you are here.

        • ...academics don't squash things that aren't "pro-liberal". They actively debate them.

          Ah, if only that were true. Then there's be no need for FIRE [thefire.org].

          A quick look at their press releases [thefire.org] should establish that your claim is inaccurate.

    • I would expand it to be don't rely on anything to facilitate your free speech.
      Everyone and Every organization has an agenda. Your speech and ideas may be supportive of the Agenda, Be neutral to it, or they may be opposed to it.

      Every organization has what I call "Editorial" rights to what is on their platforms, Including you or I. If someone enters your home, and starts saying things you don't want to hear, you can kick them out, if they refuse you can be very forceful about it.

      The United State First Amendm

      • That's insanely broad, actually.

        • It is compared to other countries, even places in rather open areas like Europe.

          However some people are saying first amendment, to justify them for not getting kicked out of stores for not wearing a mask, having their post deleted from a social media site, or not getting their editorial posted in the paper.

          • It is compared to other countries, even places in rather open areas like Europe.

            You meant narrow, then. At the very least around here we have it as a positive right, as opposed to merely the government not interfering with things. Clearly the latter covers a subset of the former, so the former is either as broad or broader.

          • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

            However some people are saying first amendment, to justify them for not getting kicked out of stores for not wearing a mask, having their post deleted from a social media site, or not getting their editorial posted in the paper.

            Those 3 are not equivalent. Not wearing a mask during a pandemic is presenting a danger to others. Newspapers not accepting your piece is them exercising editorial rights over their own content. However, social media deleting your post, when their default stance is to allow anyone to post, is in fact censorship, even if it's not the kind that is forbidden by the first amendment.

            Normally censorship by private entities doesn't matter because they have competitors. However, when a few of these entities gains m

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              However, social media deleting your post, when their default stance is to allow anyone to post,

              Which social media platforms have a default stance of allowing anything to be posted? I know the big ones have always had terms of service against some stuff and will delete those posts and ban prolific offenders. A good example is women claiming the equal right to take their shirt off, something that is perfectly legal in free countries.
              I see you actually said anyone, are there people getting kicked off while lets say, pleasantly talking about the weather or is it what they post such as the woman posting a

              • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

                Twitter for example has repeatedly made public statements about defending "free speech", including one here by the CEO comparing it to a public square (source [wired.com]:

                A lot of people come to Twitter and they don’t actually see an app or a service, they see what kind of looks like a public square. And they have the same sort of expectations of a public square. And that is what we have to make sure that we get right. And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square.

                Morally speaking, you can't make that kind of statement, then start censoring people whose speech you disagree with, even if that person is Trump.

                • by dryeo ( 100693 )

                  Well, I see some conflict in that announcement, namely, " And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square." Best thing is to look at their terms of service, which probably has a list of things that aren't welcome on their platform. Guessing, likely sex and violence, much like the real public square, where there are laws from disturbing the peace, through obsenity to vagrancy putting limits on what you can say and do.
                  Personally I find the idea of a private public square to b

    • Also works on a sliding scale -- the more you depend on someone else to distribute your speech, the more say they have in not doing so. i.e. a full-service vendor like Zoom is going to both object and get in legal trouble sooner than a low-service vendor like a DNS registrar. But both are subject to legal and economic pressures. Facebook, youtube, and twitter are on the other end and will do whatever serves their own interests - be that promoting socially damaging or even fraudulent content or dropping t
    • It’s a bit of a conundrum to figure out how something can be a “right’ if you can be oppressed, by anyone, for exercising it.

      For instance, the right to freedom of religion, or the freedom of gay marriage (where applicable). Most states include a legal prohibition from companies abridging that right. If someone fires you for being in a gay marriage, or being Muslim, or whatever, you can sue and will win.

      Not so speech. You can be fired, denied entry to places, and can be discriminated agai

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Well, it is legal here for someone to refuse to marry a gay couple if it offends their religious views, with the exception of government workers (marriage commissioner), who can be fired. Rights are like that, broad but not unlimited, so just because gays have a right to marriage, they don't have a right to force those unwilling to marry them.
        Pretty sure the same sort of things stand for religion. While generally you are free to practice your religion, the neighbourhood Sikh temple can kick out the person l

  • by mauriceh ( 3721 ) <mhilariusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 26, 2020 @11:17AM (#60650548)

    Applause to the managers at Zoom who prevented a terrorist from having a podium

    • Now if only they'd cancel white supremacist talks. Maybe judging by this it's on the radar.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Math is white supremacy and so are standardized tests. Cancel all the free math lectures and test prep videos. That'll make a better and more equitable society. /sarc
  • Not censorship (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, 2020 @11:20AM (#60650556)

    If the terrorists don't like Zoom's policies, they should go start their own zoom.

    That's what we tell conservatives, right?

    • Ok, all streets and places and buildings belong to corporations now.
      They set policies for what to say and do ... and suck.
      They declared saying HAIL to them nor sucking their dick TERRORISM.
      But /*ClEaRlY*/ it's Not Censorship(TM), since you can always go "somewhere else" ... There ain't any somewhere else, but nevermind! --.--

      (People actually defend this exact logic on the Internet.)

  • How is this any different than Facebook and Twitter censoring the posting of the NY Postâ(TM)s article on Hunter Bidenâ(TM)s emails? The NY Post is the third largest paper in the United States and their article on Hunterâ(TM)s emails and shenanigans was blacked out by both Twitter and FB. There has been an almost complete blackout on CNN/MSNBC/etc. This isnâ(TM)t the first time theyâ(TM)ve squashed media coverage that wasnâ(TM)t favorable to the Democratic Party or that coul
    • There has been an almost complete blackout on CNN/MSNBC/etc

      All of these outlets have reported on the fact that NY Post ran with the story. That's as far as they're willing to go based on the facts available. I wouldn't call that a blackout - I would call that good journalism.

      • by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Monday October 26, 2020 @12:51PM (#60650956)

        They used the same standard they used for the "Trump Russia Collusion" stuff then, right?

        Ah, no, of course not. They let the anti-Trump stuff run rampant for 4+ years --- so completely that a huge part of the nation believes it to this very day even though the Obama administration's FBI records have been declassified and released and any person can freely read them and see that it was all a lie paid for by the Clinton campaign. There were over 60 Obama admin officials who testified under oath admitting there was never ANY evidence of Trump Russia collusion - yet anybody can freely post/see content on Facebook and Twitter etc alleging Trump Russia Collusion. None of the mainstream media have apologized for their steaming piles of lies or issued corrections. The New York Times has not returned its Pulitzer prize for the story. Somehow these media outlets are not "fact checked" or banned or censored in any way by these sites, even as they have an impact on elections.

        Hmmmm

    • Not this Fox Noise again. The article in question contained personal email addresses and other personal details. One company admitted they should have described the reason for banning better, but we don't have enough evidence to disqualify them from Hanlon's Razor.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Did they do the same blocking for Trump's tax returns? If not, why?

        • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Do his tax returns contain email addresses?

          • 1. Tax returns are far more private than email addresses.

            2. Hunter's laptop and its contents were lawfully obtained, after Hunter abandoned them at a repair shop (covered by a contract he signed)

            3. Trump's tax returns were obtained in clear violation of federal laws - a criminal act.

            • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

              Tax returns are far more private than email addresses.

              Who is making these "rules"? Hannity?

              Hunter's laptop and its contents were lawfully obtained,

              Moot to the point. Twitter's anti-doxing rules are not and cannot be realistically based on what laptop the info was on. If you have my email address on your laptop and hand it to Hannity, that doesn't mean Twitter should publish my email address. Think it through.

              Trump's tax returns were obtained in clear violation of federal laws - a criminal act.

              Whether true

        • So the finances of a president corruptly and illegally profiting off the presidency is on the same level as unproven claims relying on dubious evidence that the son of a vice president might have invited someone to meet his dad?

          If that's your worldview, god damn.

          On one hand we have actual crimes committed by a sitting president, and on the other we have, even if completely substantiated, nothing.

          Seriously, how in the world can you compare the two?

    • It's definitely a tough one.
      Most people don't support censorship but most people also want what they read on common social media platforms to be factually true.

      Back when news was mainly the domain of large corporate networks, what they published was heavily scrutinized for veracity.
      Now anyone with a phone can publish "news" with zero fact checking, accountability or disclaimers.

      I guess it's probably better for everyone if the social media companies scrutinize "news" from those with huge numbers of followers

      • Most people don't mind censorship of stuff which is wrong. What is considered 'wrong' can be anything you object to . Propaganda tells people what is wrong and right. That means that the people in control of the propaganda get to control what is allowed to be said.
        This has accelerated immensely in the last four years.

        Social media companies don't give a fuck about what is true. At least not enough to take it in account. They do give a fuck about power. So if this Leila Khaled wants to reach people and others

    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      Is the NY Post actually a news paper?

      I was under the impression that for the longest times (as in hundreds of years) the NY Post was not actually reporting news but was mostly a tabloid and slandering platform for the owners of the NY Post only interested in facts that will cause shock and slander or can be bent to cause shock and slander. (Which if I understood correctly started with A. Hamilton at the end of the 18th century.)

      • Is the NY Post actually a news paper?

        I was under the impression that for the longest times (as in hundreds of years) the NY Post was not actually reporting news but was mostly a tabloid and slandering platform for the owners of the NY Post only interested in facts that will cause shock and slander or can be bent to cause shock and slander. (Which if I understood correctly started with A. Hamilton at the end of the 18th century.)

        If I own the vast majority of the means and wherewithal to disseminate information, I get to control what information gets disseminated. And If I want to label any other organization that disagrees with my agenda as a tabloid, how long would it take for the majority of the consumers of my information to reach the conclusion that the other organization is a tabloid?

        A significant portion of book burnings in the past were promoted if not started by the majority that was in control of getting information out to

      • Not only is the Post a straight up tabloid, in this case their editors refused to put their names on the byline. That should tell you something about how reliable a story it is.

    • Just because a story excites you sexually doesn't make it news. There's no blackout because there's no story to tell.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Clearly bullshit? WTF?

        They have multiple credible witnesses that were in on the conversation who have come forward with their end of the email chains.
        They have Hunter Biden's signature on the receipt.
        They have videos of him walking naked around what appears to be underage girls.
        There is all of the documented evidence that puts Hunter and Joe at the scenes of the transgressions that are being claimed.
        The is the circumstantial evidence of a man that earned less that $150k/yr on average owning multiple mansio

    • Personally I think anything should be fair game on the internet if it isn't explicitly illegal. Adults can make up their own minds and parents should actually try parenting instead of blaming the world on their kids finding shit they shouldn't.

      Fortunately this issue is cut and dry.

      Per 18 U.S.C. 2339A(b)(1) providing services and communications equipment to foreign terrorist organizations is illegal.

      Nothing the New York Post did was illegal.

      So I don't see where the issue is.

  • As our society becomes increasingly more digitized, it's clear that the only place the public sphere can exist digitally is in protocols.

    Platforms are private businesses that have their own whims and must kowtow to governments.

  • Corporate censorship of the various social media is enabled by effective monopolies on each. Those arise from the population gravitating to a single supplier of a type of service - in this case, internet video conferencing.

    The censorshp has the potential to drive enough users to another platform to form a critical mass, spurring its adoption, initially among an interest group, its further development and improvement as its user base and resulting support expands, then perhaps spreading to other interest gr

    • There are a few FOSS systems that are already working very well, for example Retroshare - http://retroshare.cc/index.htm... [retroshare.cc]
    • Jitsi did 128-people video conferences with decentralized ZRTP encryption, firewall tunnellig, tons of config options, OTP-supporting chat, desktop sharing, and provisioning, ten freaking years ago!

      Jitsi Meet [jitsi.meet], the web service equivalent, is one freaking search away! Costs nothing, works better than Zoom, has always focused on privacy. (Actually competent developers.)
      It's even installable on your own box. Open source! So you can totally use it to launch a Zoom clone this week!

      What planet are you living on? F

  • (OK, ... what did the choosing of the livestock? Don't wanna offend them by implying independent thought and personal responsibility. Was bitten by that before.)

    Other than circular reasoning ("People use it because people use it.")...

    Was it advertised or something?
    It can't be features or safety or trustworthiness.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by thereddaikon ( 5795246 ) on Monday October 26, 2020 @01:37PM (#60651158)

    ...with an amended Section 230 such as those being proposed that would drastically change how sites can censor content I still think this would be taken down. We are talking about a group that is classified as a foreign terrorist organization and the person giving the talk is a known terrorist. Last time I checked it was illegal in the US for terrorist organizations to hold public assembly.

    Per 18 U.S.C. 2339A(b)(1) it is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Material support includes ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

    There are a few things listed in there that this would fall under including services and communications equipment.

    So if Zoom had not taken it down on their own then the FBI could have made them do it and then Zoom would have had to deal with embarrassing headlines for supporting terrorist organizations. As if they needed any more bad press.

  • Anyone stupid enough to use Zoom kind of deserves this. There's plenty of alternatives, literally (and literally literally, not figuratively literally) all of which are superior to Zoom in every aspect. It is beyond well documented just how bad Zoom is; at this point it's willful ignorance to be unaware of the plethora of issues around this company and it's conferencing products.

    Are they finally encrypting audio and video transport or can every Tom, Dick, and Harry still spy on your Zoom call using the mos

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...