Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

291–300 of 397 posts

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

#291
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is going to disagree that the US treats its citizens better, but we're talking about country's foreign influence here. China doesn't cripple the economy or bomb other countries they disagree with.

> China doesn't cripple the economy or bomb other countries they disagree with. Is that a bad thing if we're trying to promulgate our values?

Societies which promulgate their values by murdering innocent people don't last long. Certainly you can see some fairly decent examples on the History Channel ...

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

#292
post #268
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

america should be cutting ties with china and encouraging our allies to do the same. enough of this shit. china is a bad actor and should be treated as such on the world stage (same with russia). there is 0 reason to do business with china beyond cheap labor and there are other options for labor.

The big downside to going too-far down that road too-quickly is that it might put China in a corner financially. I don't think anyone wants it to get to that point because isolating them quickly will definitely escalate tensions and maybe even war. Rather: Determined and solid pressure should be put on any expansionist and growth policies that China may have. Reduce and starve them of critical imports, slowly make th…

The whole point of an attack is that it hurts the other guy. If you're afraid to hurt China's economy, or worse if you fear that China will counterattack, then you have already lost.

The trade relationship between China and the USA is not a symmetrical one. The USA is the customer; it should take its business elsewhere.

Apple spent $100B on stock buybacks last year, and has allocated another $50B for this year. How many factories could Apple have established in Ecuador, Panama, or Mexico with $150B?

Big players like Apple are the ones who must move first, because a manufacturing ecosystem (ie, an urban area like a mini-Shenzhen with access to parts, skilled labor, shipping, worker housing, and prototyping tools) will spring up wherever they go. They are the only ones who have the level of scale and importance to be able to establish a beachhead in a new region. Their ability to bring revenue and jobs gives them power to negotiate favorable terms with governments of small countries.

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

#293
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is brought up every time this is mentioned, freedom of speech is the freedom from suppression of speech, not the guarantee of universal availability of a specific platform for speech. The latter never has been and never should be enshrined in law.

Here I would disagree, freedom of speech is an ideal, and the constitutional amendment was based on that ideal. Universal platforms for speech are somewhat of a new concept, but there is still some precedent against de-platforming, for example with John Adams and his defense of the British soldiers in the Boston massacare[1], a precedent that still holds (held) with attorneys defending very unsavory characters not be…

Yes, absolutely, we should defend the right of people to say things that we don't want to hear, and we should say true things that others don't want to hear; but there is a difference between defending someone against the legal consequences of the exercise of freedom of speech, and using my voice to amplify their speech (as I am doing, implicitly, if I am a large corporation that presides over a platform with global reach). The former is not legally required, but perhaps is ethically required; I'd argue that the latter is not ethically required, and may even be ethically enjoined. Even if I am wrong in this ethical calculation, it is a fact that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right in the US that I, or any corporation, will protect your freedom of speech, only that the government will not infringe it.

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

#294

“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 a huge issue of our time. The internet is a shared, virtual space. Who is to say how it is used? There’s barely any real basis for determining what falls under local law.

Surely, physical connections to the internet are geographical in nature and can be regulated. So are servers. But internet services, hosted within one nation’s borders should not be held responsible to the laws of every nation nation from which a user’s physical connection is located.

No, this is economic bullying, pure and simple. China is a huge market, and they know it’s lucrative to internet companies. They also have the ability to block their citizens from accessing the whole internet. So if a company wants access to the Chinese market, they have to play ball. It’s a genius move, but it’s also distasteful, and to many of us, quite immoral and infringent on human rights.

The decision to comply with the requests of totalitarian governments is entirety a business decision, and I would argue that it’s wrong. Play the game in reverse. If China threatens to cut off American companies from their market, American companies should threaten to cut China out of American services. Maintain our values. American software run buy American companies should uphold American values. If China wants to participate in the American internet, they need to accept American values - that we do not silence people for being critical of our or any government.

Greedy American companies who erode American values at a global level ought to be shunned. China should be allowed access to our services, but fuck the Chinese government if they demand we be complicit in their fascism.

Is there a compiled list out there of American software companies who comply with Chinese censorship demands? Or the reverse, as I suspect most American companies would gladly support fascism in a remote country to earn a buck. This issue needs visibility so that change can occur.

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

#295
post #59

“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…

Trying to steadily liberalize China through foreign exposure is extremely unrealistic. They have an iron grip on all information flow.

The decision to cater to China’s demands is a decision for profit. They need to be excluded from the world internet economy instead of embraced. We have to play their game in reverse. They are huge, but the rest of the world is larger still. We have the power to make this happen if we are willing to stick to our values over profit.

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

#296
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna play the devils advocate, and say that money _is_ more important than morals. And it's because americans have a lot of money (collectively) that they can enjoy having high morals. So i don't disagree that zoom is lacking in morals, but i also have to agree with what they did - for it is the only course of action that leads to them "winning" economically.

it's because americans have a lot of money (collectively) that they can enjoy having high morals History disagrees with you. America was founded by people with high morals and no money.

> America was founded by people with high morals and no money.

so slavery is high morals? There's some rose tinted glasses when looking thru history.

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

#297
post #162

“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…

>human rights

wait, what are human rights then?

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

#298
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Maybe. But if you don't do it, a Chinese company will just clone your product, and they will be substantially more beholden to the Chinese government than you.

That line of thinking plays right into their game. A perfect way to rationalize compliance. But it’s based on the misguided concept that somehow access to American software services will push American values on the Chinese people. All the while, compliance with their censorship demands prevents that from actually happening.

The only way to play the game is to refuse their rules. So what if they clone your software? Let them.

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

#299
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is going to disagree that the US treats its citizens better, but we're talking about country's foreign influence here. China doesn't cripple the economy or bomb other countries they disagree with.

> China doesn't cripple the economy or bomb other countries they disagree with. Is that a bad thing if we're trying to promulgate our values?

I mean from the CCP's perspective, China is promulgating their values to the Uyghurs.

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

#300
post #113

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.

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.

For Europe: see GDPR

It’s entirely common for countries to have codes that affect those outside their borders - especially ones that were agreed upon in treaty or trade deal. What is unique here is a country demanding that a non local company engage in censorship outside its territory. These two things are nothing alike

Post reply on HN