Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request • Hacker News Board

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#71

Post by barry-cotter » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

f00_ wrote: post #18

gonehome wrote: post #14

“The reality is Zoom operates in more than 80 countries and continues to expand, which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas.“ This kind of rationalization isn’t just a problem with Zoom, Apple does the same thing - blocking podcasts and other apps in the Chinese market (also the Taiwan flag emoji). This is wrong. What’s legal and what’s right are not the same th…

they have a lot of staff in china proper right? I mean, it's likely like every other business trying to operate in china (including google) bow down to the government to get the money what can you expect, just use open source

Almost all their engineering staff are in China.

> In January 2020, Zoom had over 2,500 employees, 1,396 are in the United States and 1,136 are in their international locations.[69] Although 700 employees within a subsidiary work in China and develop Zoom software.

...

Zoom's product development team is largely based in China, where an average entry-level tech salary is one-third of American salaries, which is a key driver of its profitability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#72

Post by deathgrips » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

joyfulmantis wrote: post #54

rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the law. At a certain point local laws transgress international norms and it’s justified for countries and companies that have the power to get away with it to flout them: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2013-12-15-ct... . More broadly, it’s akin to how courts in the US will generally enforce judgments of foreign courts, but not if those judgments are based on laws that deviate too far wh…

Free speech is a concept even the west is struggling with -- Twitter hiding Donald Trump's tweets for example, or New Zealand banning the terrorists manifesto. If even the bastion of free speech is starting to have second doubts about it, how can you claim the moral high ground when a third country wants to restrict free speech?

This right here is why we should regulate twitter up to nationalization. If twitter does away with free speech and other human rights it becomes the new norm.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#73

Post by zamalek » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

> which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas.

That's as good as saying "we will kill puppies if local laws require it as Zoom seeks to promote fair treatment of animals." They aren't promoting "open exchange of ideas" and likely never will. Zoom have continuously proven to be profit driven. This is perfectly fine, so long as they don't lie about it (they lie like they breath).

Furthermore, if you are an activist and are using Zoom, you have none of my pity. They have proven their beliefs at every possible opportunity, and then some, for months. You really have to start questioning your belief patterns and critical thinking if you are sharing anything remotely confidential or private on Zoom. Using Zoom for basically anything is the equivalent of "not being able to program the video tape recorder." It's not applying enough thought to the trivial problem at hand, and subjecting yourself to turmoil due to that.

We don't need legal structures for this. Just stop using stupid products, Zoom being one of the best examples.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#74

Post by gonehome » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:35 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #59

gonehome wrote: post #14

“The reality is Zoom operates in more than 80 countries and continues to expand, which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas.“ This kind of rationalization isn’t just a problem with Zoom, Apple does the same thing - blocking podcasts and other apps in the Chinese market (also the Taiwan flag emoji). This is wrong. What’s legal and what’s right are not the same th…

This is kind of a weird problem though. It seems like the equilibrium effect of not obeying Chinese laws will be that the companies are simply excluded from the Chinese market. I'm not sure how that really helps anyone. It feels like a moral victory, but i'm not sure that it actually helps anyone. It seems like the right approach might be to comply as minimally and poorly as you can get away with, while steadily tryi…

That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn’t work that way in practice. You just end up corrupting your own principles in the end.

I think the best approach would be to try to support users by making it easier for them to get access in spite of the great firewall.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#75

Post by jdm2212 » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:35 AM UTC

bigphishy wrote: post #19

runawaybottle wrote: post #9

Does anyone know if Zoom is built on any open source video streaming tech? I’m have a hard time believing their product isn’t going to meet massive amounts of competition very soon. Edit: After some Googling - https://webrtchacks.com/zoom-avoids-using-webrtc/

They were former employees of webex and may have taken a lot software design from that product.

Given that purely from the standpoint of product quality, WebEx is a gigantic dumpster fire and Zoom is fantastic, it seems likely that they learned mostly what not to do from WebEx.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#76

Post by tsimionescu » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

dheera wrote: post #43

gonehome wrote: post #14

“The reality is Zoom operates in more than 80 countries and continues to expand, which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas.“ This kind of rationalization isn’t just a problem with Zoom, Apple does the same thing - blocking podcasts and other apps in the Chinese market (also the Taiwan flag emoji). This is wrong. What’s legal and what’s right are not the same th…

> Legality should be the bare minimum standard - and in countries with bad laws (Middle East, China) it shouldn’t even be that. Honestly an app only needs to operate out of one country. To have users in other countries, all that is needed is an open TCP/IP connection and a cross-border payment system (e.g. PayPal, bitcoin); it is not necessary for them to operate a local business entity, which would mean that they sh…

The Internet does not invalidate national sovereignty. I believe this has been a very bad principle in the past, this idea that you can do business in some country, and if it's via the Internet you somehow shouldn't care about their laws. If you accept one connection from a user in some country, you are doing business in that country. And much more uncontroversially, if you are accepting payments from someone in another country, then you are definitely doing business in that country.

Even in tourism there is some level of cross-border law enforcement, especially given international treaties.

So to me it makes sense that a company that wants to take money from (or even to serve content to) people in country A need to respect the laws of country A as a general rule.

Of course, the people of a company should be free to do what they believe is right, such as not upholding unjust laws. The law is not an excuse from moral duties. So I have no problem with companies flouting censorship or even copyright rules. I also don't have a major problem with companies enforcing somewhat benign censorship rules (by taking down content, not by going against individual users), such as imposing certain public decency laws (e.g. no swearing, even no blasphemy) when serving content to countries that prohibit this kind of behavior.

On the other hand, closing down accounts or giving over information about people who have broken those laws to regimes that may punish them brutally should not be taken lightly. You can scrub messages denigrating Mohammed from Saudi Arabian YouTube and that can be argued as respecting the tastes of your Saudi Arabian visitors. But that does not mean that it is also acceptable to report a user that made such a comment to the authorities there, knowing that they may be severely punished. In fact, scrubbing the comments could even help protect the individual who made them from the authorities enforcing the unjust law in that country.

The world is a subtle place and trying to apply simple rules to moral and ethical questions is a fool's errand.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#77

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:37 AM UTC

It is troubling, but, as others have mentioned, Zoom is not alone here.

What I do not really get is why? Is the Chinese market really that important to Zoom ( especially given nascent anti Chinese sentiment in US )?

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#78

Post by gonehome » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:37 AM UTC

mkhpalm wrote: post #63

gonehome wrote: post #14

“The reality is Zoom operates in more than 80 countries and continues to expand, which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas.“ This kind of rationalization isn’t just a problem with Zoom, Apple does the same thing - blocking podcasts and other apps in the Chinese market (also the Taiwan flag emoji). This is wrong. What’s legal and what’s right are not the same th…

While emotionally I agree with everything you said. Realistically I wonder what anybody who talks like this would do when somebody with a very official legal document shows up on your doorstep. Its not as simple as it seems and most people want as little to do with problems like this. Who are we really mad at here? Zoom or the CCP for essentially forcing their will on helpless entities?

Yeah I think you’re right and honestly it’s hard to know what you’d do without being in that situation.

I’d hope I’d refuse to rationalize it.

I’d like to think that, but few people actually get that kind of character test for real (and even fewer pass it when they do).

As far as Zoom and the CCP, I think it’s reasonable to be upset with both. Zoom isn’t helpless, they have agency and could choose to do the right thing.

The citizens they're suppressing though have a lot less agency.

It’s easy to do the right thing when it costs you nothing, the real test is when it’s hard.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#79

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:38 AM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #48

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can choose not to abide by local laws and likely be shutdown entirely. That way you’ll have effectively zero ability to influence local legislation / promote the interests of users. Do you mean to imply you believe this would be a more optimal approach to the problem? There’s perfect, and then there’s the dirty, mean, savage, brutal, beautiful world. Edit to add: > The company said it would no longer block accoun…

People use this to rationalize continued involvement (often when it also happens to be profitable). People can basically rationalize any bad behavior - it really seems like a skill that has no limits up to and including genocide. In practice, I think the negative impact of helping to enable censorship for an authoritarian country outweighs whatever (likely zero) influence you’d believe you’d have. Sometimes to be on…

While I’d like to agree, if all the good people walk away what are we left with?

You might be right though.

Re: Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request

#80

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #42

HALtheWise wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most US companies that I am familiar with apply US laws to all their users, at least to some extent. For example, I don't think that YouTube will allow you to post a blatantly copyright-infringing video, even if your account declares a country that doesn't enforce US copyright laws. Similarly, I suspect that Facebook would take down a page for a terrorist group, without needing permission from the country they are ba…

Not exactly, because if you are based in a certain country, you must follow their laws regardless of where the user is. Plus obeying local laws in regards to local residents, which don’t apply to this allegation. So, by this logic, Zoom’s actions only make sense if they are based in China.

Zoom can choose to ban / block whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

Can’t they? They’re not required to do business with any particular individual by statute, are they?