Are Tech Companies Censoring Their Users For Access to China's Market? (msnbc.com) 85
This week MSNBC published an opinion piece from a researcher on China (who works on internet censorship and freedom of expression issues) from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
It examines specific exchanges between a China-based Zoom executive and employees at the company's California headquarters (taken from the 47-page complaint filed by America's Justice Department) showing how Zoom disrupted video meetings commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown: It was a fascinating read, not least because few global tech companies that do business in China have ever made public the details of their communications with Chinese authorities on censorship issues, despite repeated calls to do so from human rights organizations and United Nations experts. What the complaint reveals is Beijing's aggressive pursuit of global censorship of topics deemed sensitive or critical of Beijing, and Zoom's failure to adequately protect its users' rights to free expression and privacy...
Beijing has long leveraged market access to compel foreign tech companies to meet its censorship demands, whether in China or abroad. Apple has removed hundreds of virtual private network (VPN) apps from China's App Store. In 2019, it also removed a mapping app widely used by pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong from the App Store. LinkedIn blocked content critical of Chinese authorities for users in China. From the complaint, one can see Zoom's fear that if it didn't terminate meetings or suspend accounts upon request, it risked having its China operation shut down at any time, which loomed large in all of its decisions.
Companies understandably want access to China's huge market, but they also have a responsibility to respect human rights under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Zoom said publicly that it is "dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas," but when Jin repeatedly framed speech critical of the Chinese government as something that could "do bad things" or "illegal activities," and demanded they be censored, he met no resistance or got any questions from his colleagues at headquarters.
The article also blames Jin for making false claims to a Zoom colleague that a private Tiananmen commemoration meeting was supporting terrorism/inciting violence, after which "the colleague quickly terminated the meeting and suspended the host account without any investigation into the matter."
And it alleges that Jin also forwarded complaints from operatives who'd intentionally joined public meetings with offending content so those meetings could then be reported and shut down, while "a U.S.-based Zoom employee, knowing they were schemes, facilitated it..."
It examines specific exchanges between a China-based Zoom executive and employees at the company's California headquarters (taken from the 47-page complaint filed by America's Justice Department) showing how Zoom disrupted video meetings commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown: It was a fascinating read, not least because few global tech companies that do business in China have ever made public the details of their communications with Chinese authorities on censorship issues, despite repeated calls to do so from human rights organizations and United Nations experts. What the complaint reveals is Beijing's aggressive pursuit of global censorship of topics deemed sensitive or critical of Beijing, and Zoom's failure to adequately protect its users' rights to free expression and privacy...
Beijing has long leveraged market access to compel foreign tech companies to meet its censorship demands, whether in China or abroad. Apple has removed hundreds of virtual private network (VPN) apps from China's App Store. In 2019, it also removed a mapping app widely used by pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong from the App Store. LinkedIn blocked content critical of Chinese authorities for users in China. From the complaint, one can see Zoom's fear that if it didn't terminate meetings or suspend accounts upon request, it risked having its China operation shut down at any time, which loomed large in all of its decisions.
Companies understandably want access to China's huge market, but they also have a responsibility to respect human rights under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Zoom said publicly that it is "dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas," but when Jin repeatedly framed speech critical of the Chinese government as something that could "do bad things" or "illegal activities," and demanded they be censored, he met no resistance or got any questions from his colleagues at headquarters.
The article also blames Jin for making false claims to a Zoom colleague that a private Tiananmen commemoration meeting was supporting terrorism/inciting violence, after which "the colleague quickly terminated the meeting and suspended the host account without any investigation into the matter."
And it alleges that Jin also forwarded complaints from operatives who'd intentionally joined public meetings with offending content so those meetings could then be reported and shut down, while "a U.S.-based Zoom employee, knowing they were schemes, facilitated it..."
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
They did so for the US market.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
/, seems to have figured it out long ago - I can't recall a post being removed/censored, the user controlled mod system seems to take care of things quite well.
Re: (Score:1)
The companies have the same free speech rights we all have. There is no right to regulate content on the internet. The government's only obligation is to ensure the ISP provides non-discriminatory access to everybody
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. When all users are allowed to attach direct tags to other's comments (not sure how you think that would work), delete the comments, even clear out all followers, that might be close to true. Seems you've never read Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
And, are you seriously defending "Citizens United?"
Re: (Score:1)
It's their site. Nobody is forcing you to use them. The government's only job is to keep the market open.
And yes, Citizens United is the right call. It's not the money's fault for being so desirous, or for the voters being so star struck by bling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech has never been about violence or slander.
Re: (Score:2)
Strongly disagree. Sure, people should be able to band together for common "speech." But, not with the benefits (tax, personal liability, etc.) of a corporation. Corporations are an artificial legal construct, not any sort of right, and what they can be used for should be subject to any and all legislative constraints. Denying "corporate" speech isn't in any way infringing on the constitutional guarantee of free speech. Should individuals also be protected from respon
Re: (Score:2)
Denying "corporate" speech isn't in any way infringing on the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Perhaps you should read the Constitution. This is what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Exactly where in the phrase "no law" do you see room for a law denying speech for anyone or any entity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that section 230 overrides states "rights" in this case, and makes it very clear who holds which rights. You want to overturn that, and force certain people to publish speech they do not want to publish.
Forced speech is not free speech. You are either a propagandist working to allow government to control speech, or you are an idiot who does not understand the ramifications of the laws they propose amending.
Re: (Score:2)
It slso says "Congress..." Which leaves the States (which are not "Congress") free to regulate speech and religion, etc. all they want.
Keep reading. Let us know when you get to #14.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The bakery blew its own case by stating a reason. Should have kept their mouth shut, but their silly crusade got the better of them, or the church even put the squeeze on them.
Re: (Score:1)
> The companies have the same free speech rights we all have.
Not in the US, a Natural Rights Republic. Here rights are believed to be endowed by the Creator.
However one determines what or who the Creator is, the State governments (the creators of corporations) are not that. Corporations have many limitations on rights and many non-human obligations.
The contrast to corporations is Partnerships, where the Partners share in the legal consequences for the actions of the company. Right before Wall St. went
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that came from an extremely corrupt interpretation of law by an extremely corrupt US Supreme Court, there is no exclusion in the constitution for corporations to be excluded from being required to conform to the constitution, this is added in corruptly by a bough and paid for US supreme court, bought and paid for by those corporations from being required to adhere to the US constitution, all very blatantly corrupt.
Keep in mind they are claiming as their free speech right, their right to censor you
Re: (Score:3)
Literally, you have the right to forbid anyone from using your property to amplify their own speech. You do not need to allow me to stand on your porch and curse you out. You are not infringing my free speech rights by removing me from your property.
You want to change that, and force certain people to use their own property in ways they don't agree with. You want to force them to publish speech they don't agree with. You want to limit the free speech and property rights of some, while giving extra speech an
Re: (Score:1)
The only people who could possibly think the US would be better without 230, are either the unimaginative fool or the troll wanting to climb from beneath the bridge.
Without Section 230c of the Communications Decency Act, the front page of every user submitted content website would be filled with people spewing lies, hate and other offensive material.
Free speech is a right protected in good faith for those using it to speak true to their opinions, observations, thoughts or beliefs. It is not the right to let
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you, asshole. Just sayin, if you don't agree to publish, with your own account, the phrase "I, msauve, am a stupid troll asshole who literally has sex with corpses." then you are limiting my free speech rights in exactly the same way you propose should not be allowed. So you are wither a hypocrite, or an idiot. Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot deletes posts all the time. You'd have stories with 5 real comments and the other 30 were ascii swastikas or the same spam over and over. If you replied to the spam your post was deleted too. It happens much less now that anonymous posting was disabled.
What is wrong with a private website being allowed to moderate content? Old slashdot would simply tell you to start your own site and allow whatever you want. Now everyone here cries how it isn't fair that and big daddy government has to teach those
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. What's wrong with making websites responsible for the content they serve?
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make sites responsible for user-posted content, there would be very few sites that would allow user-posted content (the cost of policing it would be far too high). Section 230 was created specifically in response to a case where Prodigy was found liable for a user-posting (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.). Repealing Section 230 will take us back to that situation - and the liability is just too great. If the site is responsible for them, they just won't take the risk. This includes YouTube, slashdot, Twitter, Facebook, Fox News (I am talking about the comments section, not their stories)... The sites that are exclusively user-content will need to dramatically change and become "catered". I could even imagine that Google and all other search engines might find themselves liable (they are publishing their search results), thus possibly shutting down the whole category of search engines.
So, the side-effect of making them responsible will basically be less free speech on the internet (with perhaps a site or two like 4chan that allows just about anything - but those sites will probably be shut down for child-porn, drug dealing or other similar activities that are illegal - after all, there are still large categories of illegal speech). There may also be much stronger international controls than exist now (changing the US laws will also have influence on many foreign countries who will follow suit with their own local restrictions - for example posting those Swastikas is quite likely illegal in Germany and maybe the Germans would be inclined to start blocking slashdot because it violates their local rules).
Re: (Score:1)
but those sites will probably be shut down for child-porn, drug dealing or other similar activities that are illegal - after all, there are still large categories of illegal speech)
The fact that you can post illegal content to sites that allow user-posted content and get the site taken down is a BUG not a FEATURE.
We need to stop the pandemic of companies and political groups paying overseas shitheads to upload illegal content to their competitors so they can be reported to the hosting provider.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you can post illegal content to sites that allow user-posted content and get the site taken down is a BUG not a FEATURE
Do you think this is a bug that can be fixed? I think that this is basically impossible. For better or for worse, society as a whole will impose its rules (online and offline). It always has, it always will. No society on earth will allow for arbitrary content to be posted without consequences. There will always be limits. (And think about it, you probably have your limits too.)
If there is a pandemic of companies/political groups gaming the system - well, are you surprised? This is "normal" behavior. And no
Re: (Score:1)
230 was intended to encourage websites to moderate responsibly.
If the "tech companies" don't moderate (censor) at all, their website devolves into 4chan, their users become disgusted, and then the advertising dollars leave.
If the "tech companies" moderate (censor) too heavily, their users will become frustrated and leave for other websites, and then the advertising dollars leave.
Either way, websites can experiment with moderation, aiming to please the maximum audience with the perfect amount of moderation,
Re: (Score:2)
As a regular user of 4chan I can tell you that all the shit is contained to /b/ and /pol/, and people are regularly told to fuck off to /b/ and /pol/.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is full of censorship. Try posting the N words. The racist one was banned by the previous owners, n@zi was banned by Bizx to try to reduce the amount of spam. There are probably more I don't know about.
Anyway, unlimited free speech isn't a viable business model. Look at sites like 4chan and Voat. Too toxic to generate enough income to cover costs, can't get enough users.
Taking full editorial responsibility isn't a viable business model either. Too many posts to be manually reviewed, censorship tech
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but certainly could be. Make users take responsibility by posting under their verified, real names.
Re: (Score:2)
Properly verifying users is not a viable business model. The barrier to entry would be so high most people would not bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say it is laziness. It is capitalism. Businesses look for return on investment. If you set up a situation where it is hard to make money in a given way, you will find few businesses that even try. Without a doubt, no matter what the rules there will be some profitable ways to run a website. It's just that many of the things you take for granted today (e.g. being able to post to slashdot) might go away if the rules change too much. Making website verify every single user is a good way to drive up
Re: (Score:2)
Making website verify every single user is a good way to drive up costs and hence a way to make forums very unprofitable.
It's also irrelevant. They could spend all the money in the world verifying users and absent Section 230 they would still have to spend the money to check their posting content because they would still be liable for anything hosted on their site, even if they knew who the author was. So verification of users is worthless to the situation at hand, and thus has nothing to do with it at all. They would still have to monitor the content of every post and decide whether it was legal before approving it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the point certainly has attained orbit over your head.
Free Speech on the internet depends on Section 230 of the CDA.
You're characterizing this as the big players being lazy, but that's pure bullshit, because this is between internet comments existing, and not existing. The big players can't do it profitably, and the smaller ones are even less able to perform that task. Consequently, comment sections will simply go away, and that speech will be lost.
I don't get why you're anti-free-speech, but if you ge
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. It would essentially make comments like letters to the editor to a newspaper. Someone would need to vet each one.
Re: (Score:2)
Pains me to say it, but Trump is right about Section 230.
It hurts you because it's wrong. That feeling is cognitive dissonance. You want the dopamine rush of knowing people agree with something you've said, so you've said something you know a lot of people agree with. But if you just take the time to think about it, you'll realize it was fucking daft.
All these tech companies want to have their cake, and eat it too.
They want to profit by permitting people to exchange cakes, even if those cakes are illegal. But we benefit from the cake exchange system, in the form of currency of cake. (I was going to say liquidity, but, uh...)
Either give users free speech, and be free of responsibility for it, or censor/editorialize and take full responsibility for all of it. They shouldn't get to pick and choose.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
It hurts you because it's wrong...
WTF are you talking about? This almost sounds like projection since it has nothing to do with the point being made. Trump is made of shitty, evil ideas, so when he says something that's not so shitty and evil, it's really odd.
The problem with your rather naive idea is that it tramples on shareholders' free speech. You want to destroy one group's right to free speech to enhance another's. That provably reduces freedom of speech as a whole.
How does that "trample on shareholders' free speech" exactly? Shareholders don't run the company. You sound like some 1%er that cares about the rights of a small group of people compared to the rights of a much larger group.
You're very much dismissing the power that these social media
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a company be liable for content a user posts in the first place?
If you go into a mall and start shouting "Death to Americans!" the mall isn't liable. They can kick you out. Even if they also let a singer set up and perform on a stage.
The idea that online companies must either be held accountable for user posts, or refuse to remove any user posts, is nonsensical, antithetical to the owners' free speech rights, and also injurious to the owners' property rights.
Basically, you want government to regu
Re: (Score:2)
Pains me to say it, but Trump is right about Section 230. All these tech companies want to have their cake, and eat it too.
One of the reasons that the tech companies get away with profiting off all types of speech is that the same companies are also key gatekeepers to the speech. As such, these companies get to shape public perception of their stewardship of the speech forums. What would be interesting would be an independent monitor focused on how the tech companies manage their forums. For example, some independent website showing the types of forums, messages, stories, etc. for each company. The independent monitors don'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's so cute: You think the right-wing isn't feeding you propaganda.
Right-wing idealogues have controlled the political dialogue in the USA for 40 years (eg. 'war on drugs', 'tough on crime', 'regime change', 'climate change is unproven', 'fake news'), we rarely hear the left-wing: We DO hear the right-wing telling us what they think the left-wing is saying.
The federal government said this in a anti-terrorism report in 2013, after 12 years of not investigating.
The US government is responsible for ensuri
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Username checks out.
You're equating anyone that doesn't endorse your climate change skeptical pro-Republican propaganda as left-wing.
Get a clue, the democrats are a center-right party with a few fringe elements such as Bernie.
Reds under the bed nonsense.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, you should really get a passport and travel to countries that unlike China, NK, Venezuela and Cuba aren't communist one party states.
By your standards even Britain's conservative party would be considered commie with its gun restrictions, action on climate change and NHS.
Re: Big pile of bullshit to climb over (Score:1)
Aussies are no better. They talk a good game, but they confiscated their people's guns 24 years ago and now get to lock people in their homes. Western Canada is pretty good, they still have their guns and like their oil and gas and free speech. Isra
Re: Big pile of bullshit to climb over (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they would be.
The reason you look like an idiot is because you have your own personal definitions of things which don't line up with anyone else except fellow nutcases. "Communism" isn't simply a synonym for "shit you don't like".
why they can get away with confining nominally free citizens to their homes in the name of zomg covid
Your part of the right likes to claim "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose", but what they actually mean is "fuck you imma punch you in the face FREEDUM!".
I'd be more happy for you to not take adequate precautions in a pandemic if you could be found criminally liable for murder or attempted murder if you infected someone. But clearly what you want is license and a lack of responsibility.
Or you know, accept that there's an infectious disease and you infecting other people is the metaphorical equivalent of punching them in the face, something you have no legal or moral right to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Just your quick bullshit debunking:
No one claimed China wasn't a geopolitical threat. That's why Trump rolling over on their claiming of the South China Sea in return for Chinese trademarks for him and Ivanka was met with horror. However, instead he enacted ant lost a trade war
They cannot violate people's rights, because the rights protect us from the government. But yes, when I think about "corpora
Re: (Score:2)
For the last for years, the left wing US media have instinctively opposed anything and everything Trump said, right or wrong.
That was easy and sensible because nothing he said was right, and if he did anything positive, it was for negative reasons — at least, based on his stated reasons.
That was damaging, because
...some people sold themselves the lie that Trump was doing positive things, and absolutely refuse to believe anything else.
now they find themselves having to undo years of propaganda
Now they find themselves having to shake their head in disbelief at the pure stupidity of their potential audience.
Does a bear shit in the woods? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would have to be extremely naive to think they weren't doing this to get access to the Chinese market or just in total denial.
Honestly the title should be:
Tech Companies Censoring Their Users For Access to China's Market
Re: Does a bear shit in the woods? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The bear did not file an environmental impact statement on time and thus has no permit to shit in the woods.
Meanwhile, a panda can shit anywhere he wants to...
Re: (Score:3)
America sinicized in the worst way possible.
You got this all wrong. What's happened is large publicly owned businesses do exactly what they always do: exploit a resource with no regard to consequence. It's shortsighted and sociopathic but that is the modus operandi of large publicly owned businesses as a result of short-term profit optimization.
The only consideration here is profit. Human rights, morals, ethics are only observed when doing so results in higher profits.
Re: Does a bear shit in the woods? (Score:1)
Some institutional investors favor long-term stuff, but the places they put their money are still required to run themselves on a quarter by quarter basis.
Perhaps a promising avenue would entail a more favorable tax structure for smaller, rather than larger, busines
Re: (Score:3)
If I had any idea about how to fix that without throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'd be a rich man.
No you wouldn't. There are several ways of incentivizing long term thinking but executives and directors don't like them so spineless politicians do nothing.
You fail to realize that short-term thinking is self-promoting.
Re: Does a bear shit in the woods? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Does a bear shit in the woods? (Score:1)
Of course they are! (Score:5, Insightful)
The record of American institutions (tech, political [battleswarmblog.com], business, education, etc) climbing in bed to do the bidding of the Communist Chinese government [battleswarmblog.com] is quite long.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, and if you go back in time you can find a huge number of companies doing business with the German government in WWII (Lameness filter didn't want me to name the political party they all belonged to) too. It's not a good look, which is why such companies tend to try to hide that part of their history.
Re: (Score:3)
Lameness filter didn't want me to name the political party they all belonged to
Here, let me help you. The party name is NSDAP, in German. NSGWP, i.e. National Socialist German Workers Party, in English.
See, the n word was a slur. NSDAP first appealed to mostly Bavarian hicks and the core of the party was composed of them. Socialist workers, see?
Bavarians are largely catholic, and just like in every society there were jokes with a typical character. That character was Nasi which is short for Ignatius. The ac
It's time companies grow a backbone (Score:3)
All of this caving to Chinese interests to make sure you still make a buck shows moral failures of all these companies - they'd get a lot more support if they simply stood up and showed they have a backbone, instead of cowering to authoritarian regimes.
Re: (Score:1)
The previous biggest trade bully is now crying because he came across a bigger bully.
Re: (Score:2)
they'd get a lot more support if they simply stood up and showed they have a backbone
Unfortunately they wouldn't. Look at movies like the recent Transformers ones, which pander to Chinese audiences. Some of the worst big budget movies ever made but they do well enough at the box office and audiences don't seem to care as long as they also have some American flag shots too.
What trading with Germany was like (Score:5, Insightful)
That whole "well it's kinda complicated" line from Zoom, Apple, etc. is really not that much different than anything IBM told themselves. Odds are pretty good IBM didn't know about the Holocaust; we know for a fact that Big Tech knows about the camps and other issues across China. They're going in with their eyes wide open; heck, Apple is even lobbying to loosen up federal restrictions that could hit them in the wallet.
This is why so many of us hate, and I mean hate the sanctimonious prattling from Silicon Valley. Sure, defund ICE, police, etc. Posture about trans issues, etc.
You're doing business with people who are running concentration camps where crimes against humanity are the norm; where among other things, women are frequently gang-raped into submission like some Asian take on the end of 1984.
Re: (Score:2)
Odds are pretty good IBM didn't know about the Holocaust;
We know definitively that IBM knew about the holocaust [theatlantic.com], and that the knowledge and decision-making went literally straight to the top. IBM was willfully complicit in the holocaust, and should have been nationalized under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, with Thomas Watson tried for treason.
This is why so many of us hate, and I mean hate the sanctimonious prattling from Silicon Valley. Sure, defund ICE, police, etc.
Sure, feel free to hate the hypocrisy of it. But you shouldn't let your feels get in the way of a critical evaluation of police and immigration services funding.
Re: What trading with Germany was like (Score:2)
In short, yes.
Fuck them and their pursuit of profit at any price. Fuck their executives right in their corrupt asses.
Still not woke yet (Score:3)
Is it just a coincidence that some of the most brutal rhetorical savaging of the USA, from within the USA, is done by wealthy elites who have a huge finger in the China pie: Hollywood and sports leagues (both league expansion and sportswear, especially shoes)?
Is it more than just overlooking China's sins, lest their movies or $200 shoes be cut off? Or is it active export of derogatory attitudes and censorship?
There's a meme picture floating around mocking an angry protester, saying how corporations, universities, Hollywood, and media are right there with him, down for the revolution. The same ones who kow tow to China lest they get cut off.
Definite? No. Worth investigating and looking askance at? Yes.
Re: Still not woke yet (Score:2)
Is it just a coincidence that some of the most brutal rhetorical savaging of the USA, from within the USA, is done by
Our country has had its ballots counted, calculated and manipulated in a foreign country with a company controlled by friends of enemies of the United States.
What do we have to do to get the FBI to wake up? Maybe we need a new agency to protect us.
- Personal Attorney for President Trump
https://youtu.be/eryCJUCrX6c [youtu.be]
You want to talk about rhetorical savaging?
Please, please, PLEASE, top a sitting president's lawyer, himself a former governor, claiming our federal elections are forfeit and the FBI needs to be replaced. You probably missed it because it wasn't even in the top ten craziest things that happened that week. This isn't some fake news pundit fishing for clicks and views, it's not some random angry person on the street with a chant, it's the president's fucking lawyer. We're so used to ignoring the garbage fro
Re: (Score:1)