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

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

#181

Post by Mediterraneo10 » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:12 AM UTC

_8j50 wrote: post #162

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…

You do realize that what you're saying is a political opinion? Political dissent and a free press are democratic rights not human rights. China is not a democracy. Democracy is not a moral right and many would also say it's a wrong. Things like national sovreignity mean something. You don't get to decide if other country's laws are bad, the people of that country do, and if they don't like it, it's up to them to do s…

> Political dissent and a free press are democratic rights not human rights.

Those are considered human rights under Articles 18–21 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, the UDHR represents largely the thinking of the Western elites in the years immediately after World War II, and it has been argued that its understanding of human rights is foreign to China and unacceptable to it. Nevertheless, the line between democratic rights and human rights is not as clear cut as you suggest.

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

#182

Post by moksly » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:15 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #120

gonehome wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that we all have responsibility for the software we put out into the world, and we're complicit in how it's used. It's wrong to offload that ethical responsibility entirely to others. Things get better because we want them to be better, as people that build these things we have to care.

Surely it doesn’t come as a surprise to you that there exist in this world who no only don’t think like you... There are people in this world who are happy to write cigs than can be weaponised against those they disagree with. So in that sense, I’d suggest you’re wrong. Software Developers are not a homogeneous while who do or should think like you. Whether or not we agree that way of being is reprehensible is a diff…

We have international human rights, we could enforce companies to follow those guidelines everywhere if they want to do business on our own countries.

Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in. The US isn’t alone in this of course, but it’s where the majority of international human rights infringement companies reside.

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

#183

Post by atoav » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:22 AM UTC

HALtheWise wrote: post #36

monocasa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, as absolutely reprehensible Apple's similar actions are, Zoom canceled _a US based account_ because of a Chinese request. It's one thing to be all "we comply with local laws", and another to enforce one country's geopolitical aspirations across international borders. Like, I think companies should take a stand and both aren't acceptable, but Zoom takes new, additional steps here.

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…

Where you can see this most clearly is nudity. Traditionally europe had a more liberal approach when it came to nudity — that was until US platforms came in with their prude nipple policing.

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

#184

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:22 AM UTC

moksly wrote: post #182

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it doesn’t come as a surprise to you that there exist in this world who no only don’t think like you... There are people in this world who are happy to write cigs than can be weaponised against those they disagree with. So in that sense, I’d suggest you’re wrong. Software Developers are not a homogeneous while who do or should think like you. Whether or not we agree that way of being is reprehensible is a diff…

We have international human rights, we could enforce companies to follow those guidelines everywhere if they want to do business on our own countries. Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in. The US isn’t alone in this of course, but it’s where the majority of international human rights infringement companies reside.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...

Yeah, it’s only as good as the local laws and their enforcement.

Something to strive for though.

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

#185

Post by paranoidrobot » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:24 AM UTC

jackson1442 wrote: post #165

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…

> 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 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the data held to US law if it's stored in the US? I'm pretty sure the federal government wouldn't take kindly to me storing petabytes of copyrighted works in the US, regardless of whether my clients ar…

It's definitely a US law applies everywhere thing for US based companies.

Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft apply DMCA takedown requests to servers hosted physically outside of the US.

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

#186

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:24 AM UTC

jbay808 wrote: post #92

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the above discussion is about whether they have to , not whether they can . Zoom can ban all of their users if they want to, but presumably they only will do so if pressured, because businesses want users and also suspending accounts is bad press. By the way, you're also allowed to be outraged by what a business does even when that business is acting within its rights.

I get the feeling there is no bad press in this context.

Zoom gets lots of free press exposure and gets to point out how they are improving.

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

#187

Post by kfk » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:26 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #45

kfk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to justify zoom but I do want to point out that we shouldn’t be ok with judging a country to the point of saying they have “bad laws”. Maybe it’s because I am Italian and have seen what happens when discussions go head to head like this (II world war for instance). If we would stand by “no acceptance of bad laws”, we’d isolate those countries even more. I think it’s far better to accept that’s how they o…

That’s creeping up on moral relativism and there is a huge corpus of relevant work decrying that position.

If you put it like that it sounds like the alternative is moral absolutism. I take issue with absolutes because they do not promote any type of meaningful discussion. You are basically going up to a country and telling them you are right, we have seen how this approach tends to work out. I think we should always come from a place of empathy and trying to understand their position too, how else would you expect them to listen to what you have to say.

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

#188

Post by joyfulmantis » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:31 AM UTC

alisonatwork wrote: post #132

joyfulmantis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an american you don't have the right while in mainland china to criticize the CCP. While there is no simple way to apply sovereignty to the internet, the decision to follow the laws of the participants countries seems relatively reasonable.

The interesting thing about this is that it's asymmetric. If you are a Chinese citizen you can be arrested for sharing content the Party objects to, even if you were overseas when you did it[1]. You do not even have to be inside China or a Chinese citizen, the authorities may still kidnap and imprison you for exercising your right to free speech in jurisdictions where it is not restricted[2]. So it seems like it does…

In response to the first point most countries retain the right to prosecute their citizens for crimes committed overseas even if it wasn't a crime where it was committed. For the application of US law on US citizens abroad see https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/6503/are-there-an...

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

#189

Post by dirtyid » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

alisonatwork wrote: post #132

joyfulmantis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an american you don't have the right while in mainland china to criticize the CCP. While there is no simple way to apply sovereignty to the internet, the decision to follow the laws of the participants countries seems relatively reasonable.

The interesting thing about this is that it's asymmetric. If you are a Chinese citizen you can be arrested for sharing content the Party objects to, even if you were overseas when you did it[1]. You do not even have to be inside China or a Chinese citizen, the authorities may still kidnap and imprison you for exercising your right to free speech in jurisdictions where it is not restricted[2]. So it seems like it does…

Chinese propaganda operating freely in the west platforms, while western propaganda being filtered in Chinese platforms is a real conundrum since both parties are... following relevant local regulations. I suppose labeling state actors and revealing misinformation campaigns is a start. The other insidious strategy is suppressing speech on foreign campuses that target foreign citizens, particularly anti-China advocates who can be coerced with threats to family back in China. No real good solution except punishing obvious bad actors. Maybe ban children of CCP officials from attending these institutions if they can stomach the retaliation in withdrawn Chinese enrollment. Censorship between US and Chinese platforms are a difficult structural asymmetry. Hard to see how west can match without adopting similar (anti)values. Not much to do but mitigate.

On your examples: CCP sees some speech as national security issues, which in itself is not controversial i.e. wikileaks. On Luo Daiqing in, countries have subject matter jurisdiction, laws that apply to citizens at all times and regardless of location, i.e. treason. If certain speech is outlawed in China then Chinese nationals can legally be prosecuted by China for them regardless of jurisdiction. Other countries have same legal arrangements on other issue, i.e. sex tourism, organ transplants, drug use. Causeway Books is more complicated, HK(Chinese) and foreign nationals operating in HK to distributed banned books to customers IN mainland which is illegal but also un-prosecutable due to lack of extradition treaty with HK. Basically the reason behind current HK national security law designed to close one-country security loopholes. CCP believes selling illegal books to mainland undermines national security. It was less of a free speech issue than shenanigans comparable to foreign NGO meddling that CCP thinks jeopardizes one-country national security and worth expending political capita on to control. Since national security in context of one-country was legally undefined, CCP was forced to resort to coerce or rendition. It's like how the west will prosecute whistleblowers wherever they are, sometimes through extraordinary means, no matter the optics. Even though in this context the book sellers were (from my understanding) peddling salacious gossip.

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

#190

Post by nokya » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 8:39 AM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #151

cm2187 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though frustrating, the rest of the world has had to deal with the extra-territoriality of US laws for decades now, particularly in finance. I don't think it's good. But at least it is recriprocal.

And that extraterritoriality is being used to cut the countries (Iran, Cuba) off from international trade.

Yes, not only from trade, but also from humanitarian help, as it just recently happened when the USA threatened to sanction any of its "allies" who would try selling care/health material to Iran.