17 ms·

“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 ope

“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 thing, Zoom’s PR about the promotion of an “open exchange of ideas” is nonsense and both Zoom and the CCP know it. Companies that work to suppress the rights of citizens are complicit in that suppression and its legality is irrelevant. When Zoom is requested to send over names and videos of political dissidents to authoritarian leaders will they comply? I’m sure those killed will be pleased to know Zoom was operating within the legal framework of their country. Legality should be the bare minimum standard - and in countries with bad laws (Middle East, China) it shouldn’t even be that.

f00_ 6y ago
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
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications
monocasa 6y ago
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.
- HALtheWise 6y ago
  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 based in. I'm curious if you know of counterexamples. I'm not necessarily saying that US and Chinese laws are equivalent in this sense, but it does seem like something of a double standard.
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    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.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      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?
      - jbay808 6y ago
        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.
        TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
        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.
dicomdan 6y ago
The difference is that Zoom does China’s censorship outside of Chinese borders.
- joyfulmantis 6y ago
  These were accounts that were holding meetings with large amount of mainland chinese users. Whatsmore they admitted the blocking was a mistake caused by their inability to prevent users from joining a meeting by region, a functionality which they are now developing because of this problem.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    I don’t think that’s an excuse at all. As an American, it’s fully within my rights to critique the CCP to as many mainlanders I want to, including holding meetings with mainlanders. They should have been never blocked.
    - joyfulmantis 6y ago
      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.
      - komali2 6y ago
        You certainly have the right, all humans do, even PRC citizens. It's the natural right of free speech. That some governments (the PRC, for example) have passed laws abridging that natural right means you'll suffer consequences for exercising that right anywhere CCP cronies can get their hands on you. I think it's an important distinction. Might doesn't make right.
      - alisonatwork 6y ago
        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 doesn't really matter to the Chinese government what the laws are in other countries, when it comes to suppressing speech. Meanwhile, Chinese officials and propaganda outlets continue to enjoy full freedom of speech in both social media and traditional media in the west. [1] https://www.axios.com/china-arrests-university-minnesota-twitter-e495cf47-d895-4014-9ac8-8dc76aa6004d.html https://www.axios.com/china-arrests-university-minnesota-twi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
kfk 6y ago
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 operate today BUT also engage with them in conversations that matter to us like democracy and human rights.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  > I think it’s far better to accept that’s how they operate today BUT also engage with them in conversations that matter to us like democracy and human rights. That's a nice idea, but China's approach is to deplatform those conversations.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  That’s creeping up on moral relativism and there is a huge corpus of relevant work decrying that position.
  - kfk 6y ago
    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.
duxup 6y ago
Apple blocks things in China right? Zoom performs China's bidding globally.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Yea, bringing Apple into the picture dilutes what Zoom does. Not to mention things they do that we don’t even know. Why is that US gets muddled up with a truly authoritarian regime like the CCP. Shit is broken in America, but millions of people marched in last couple of weeks. I don’t think there is a possibility of any kind of anti-gov protests in China. Apple is an extremely privacy centric company to the point where it’s become it’s primary selling point. It’s advertising it proudly and backing up with real actionable steps - T2 chip, iMessage, Face ID, localized ML, etc.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  When setting up an iPhone in China the “iCloud” is actually operated by a local third-party and has access to all the content. Most of Apple’s privacy promises and commitments go out the window when it comes to being in China.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
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 accounts outside of mainland China at Beijing's request Blocking accounts of non-Chinese at China’s request seem like an incredibly dumb move in the first instance. I wonder what motivated them to comply with that request. Aren’t a lot of the Zoom devs based in China? It’d seem fairly trivial then for China to demand compliance via those employees based there.
- fossuser 6y ago
  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 the right side of history the right thing to do is to walk away.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    While I’d like to agree, if all the good people walk away what are we left with? You might be right though.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I don't think the good people have to do nothing, they can work to help users circumvent the firewall via things like tor. It's really tempting to think that you're the good person helping in a messy situation (especially when it's also the easiest option to choose), but ultimately I think it's just rationalizing bad behavior. I think most people believe they're 'good', even those doing the censorship in China do it under some belief that they're keeping stability and unity to prevent Trump like stupidity and western influence - or the rise of religious extremism. They're regular people doing regular jobs for something they think is good. I think the actions matter, when you're doing bad things for some ambiguous influence I'm not sure how good you really are.
dheera 6y ago
> 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 should not be subject to local laws. Although this may be an unpopular opinion, and given the HN climate it's likely I'm going to get downvoted to hell for saying this, but I personally think the same should be true of GDPR. GDPR is an EU law and the EU has no right to impose its EU laws on the US or anywhere else. Neither does China. It doesn't matter if the laws are good or bad laws -- laws should stay within their jurisdiction. Letting the EU have their way is a slippery slope of a precedent for other countries who may have less-noble laws they want imposed on the US. (That said, the US can implement its own version of GDPR for US businesses, but US businesses shouldn't be subject to EU laws).
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with you actually, and in spirit, I definitely do. But what's to stop a European from hosting content on USA servers, posing as USA company, and violating their regulation--even specifically targeting users local to their area from that remote server? Granted, if significant revenue is generated they'll have to exist officially in one place or another in order to report the income, but not all such sites would need to generate such income, and could forgo it specifically for the purpose of violating local regulations in some cases.
  - kd5bjo 6y ago
    > But what's to stop a European from hosting content on USA servers, posing as USA company, and violating their regulation--even specifically targeting users local to their area from that remote server? That’s what customs and border control is ultimately for: to ensure that goods being imported are compliant with local laws. In the case of data, this means national firewalls— something that would fundamentally change how the internet works.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dannyw 6y ago
Example: Google famously exited China.
darawk 6y ago
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 trying to liberalize China through foreign exposure. It's a tough call, though. It's not a decision I would want to have to make, that's for sure.
- fossuser 6y ago
  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.
  - darawk 6y ago
    > 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.
    - bitcurious 6y ago
      Yes but that Chinese company won’t be able to censor the other ~7 Billion people on Earth.
    - x3haloed 6y ago
      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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sillysaurusx 6y ago
Zoom has many employees in China, don’t they? If they lose their business license, they’ll lose those employees. Imagine losing half your company almost overnight. How well would you do?
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think that’s just evidence that this isn’t an issue they ever cared about. They were planning to just censor whatever the CCP wanted from the beginning, their “mistake” was extending this to a US account because they don’t have the granularity to separate out mainland China users (which itself should be disturbing since they’re clearly not walling things off to protect accounts the CCP shouldn’t have access to). They’re in this position because they don’t think what they’re doing is unethical in the first place. I still think it’s wrong, I wouldn’t have been in China in the first place because of this.
- Lio 6y ago
  This strikes me as equivalent to outsourcing to a country with lax environmental protection to cut costs. Personal opinion but Zoom shouldn’t be allowed to undercut firms using developers based in liberal democracies and still have market access to the West.
mkhpalm 6y ago
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?
- fossuser 6y ago
  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.
  - jcytong 6y ago
    Yes it's hard so it's up to the consumer because we also have agency - to stop and say no to businesses like that. It's the CCP playbook. To entice western companies with its lucrative market and at the same time continue its totalitarian regime and oppression. It becomes harder and harder for these companies to "do the right thing" as its influence and market grows. It'll continue to feed the "China way" as simply an alternative to the democracy. At some point, it becomes so big that it's impossible to reverse course. The reality is that when other companies see that Zoom can get by, it'd be harder for them say no because looking the other way when the bully is around becomes the norm.
- monokh 6y ago
  Zoom can either a) Keep their moral code and be happy in the idea that they will probably be cut off from that market (China) or b) Drop their morals, appease to the local laws as unjust as they may be in the hope that their business there continues. They chose the latter and still want to pretend they are doing both. That's a problem.
Melting_Harps 6y ago
> When Zoom is requested to send over names and videos of political dissidents to authoritarian leaders will they comply? No, the CCP will just get the UN (according to Humans Right Lawyer at the UN) to do it for them: https://thehumanoid.net/un-whistleblower-emma-reilly-un-human-rights-council-china-emails-dissidents-uighurs-tibet-xinjiang-unhrc/ https://thehumanoid.net/un-whistleblower-emma-reilly-un-huma... Cool handle, I wished more people would just stop using propriety closed source software, we can at least try and make inroads that way. Because realistically no fledgling startup going after marketshare is going to realistically turn down CCP money, and will accept what ever they have to gain access to China and this is why its so dangerous why they have infiltrated this space as this is just one example of so many violations due to it. God only knows what all of those facial recognition companies with CCP blessing have done.
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  I'm very suspicious of this article. I've watched a decent bit of the interview, and I'm concerned about the lack of verification that she is in fact a UN employee as she claims, and the absence of any incriminating emails she mentions in the interview. Quick edit: It just occurred to me to search for other articles by the whistleblower's name. I still don't see any evidence so I am skeptical, but anyone else reading should have the chance to judge for themselves. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292510/un-human-rights-council-emails-sent-to-china-dissident-Uighur-Tibet-hong-kong-Gao-Zhisheng https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292510/un-human-rights... https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human-rights-office-china-dissidents https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human-rights-office-china-d...
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    Interesting, I havevn't followed up on it, but the UN recently did come out to deny these claims in a recent press conference, which didn't deny she was an employee there. But you're right details are not easy to self-verify; but given what the CCP has done and continue to do with the WHO is it really all that far-fetched to see they paid off a bunch if UN members to pass them information. Consider how the US needed operatives/assets inside the Iranian nuclear program to deploy what eventually would become Stuxnet-gate.
jeswin 6y ago
It's unfair to lay the blame squarely on private companies when things like this happen. If we have to defend freedom, democratic nations need to step up. The US probably will (for various reasons), but Europe won't. Europe will speak up and act when it comes to smaller nations, but will continue to do $550B in trade with China without complaining. There has never been a peaceful rise of a dictatorship. Hong Kong and South China Sea today, Taiwan is next. The future is scary.
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
The alternative is to not be in China at all. The problem with that of course, if that the softwares that do comply will suddently win an unfair market advantage against the ones taking a moral stand.
- Lio 6y ago
  There is an argument that where China is blocking market access, the West should reciprocate. If Zoom is a Chinese company with just a registered US office as has been suggested, then it would appear to be an attempt to circumvent that.
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    > There is an argument that where China is blocking market access, the West should reciprocate. Faire point. But what I'm expecting that we already do it: we probably ask for modifications in their software as well, it's not not something we talk about. > If Zoom is a Chinese company with just a registered US office as has been suggested, then it would appear to be an attempt to circumvent that. I would think it's more of a PR move. WeChat has such a reputation it would never make it into the west.
  - totony 6y ago
    >There is an argument that where China is blocking market access, the West should reciprocate. I'm not sure following local laws is considered as protectionism if the same standard is applied to local companies. Blocking market access would be applying unequal standards depending on origin (which I don't allege that they don't do - but for this particular case it doesn't look like they do).
- fomine3 6y ago
  This. Google does this for a long time while competitors don't do this but weirdly Google isn't praised well in HN or other places.
  - fossuser 6y ago
badrabbit 6y ago
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 something about it with or without peace. The only exception is human rights violations which you didn't list in your opinion. Short of that, how dare you imply a company should break laws for political reasons? If Facebook helped russia inferfere with your elections would that be ok? because they agree with Russian politics or are you saying the western and democratic way is right and all else should only be tolerated when convenient?
- ellimilial 6y ago
  Not that suppression of said rights leads to violation of (what is a current consensus of)of human rights. Ironically, those events were hosted for remembrance of those violations. A fantastic approach meant at justifying non-interest, always present in the history of totalitarian regimes.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > 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.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Article 18: most muslims disagree,many islam countries would kill you for conversion Article 19: this one is silly, every government would persecute you for holding certain opinions even without expressing those opinions. Look at how alleged communists in the US were treated around the time this document was drafted. Or consider holding an ISIS or islamic terrorism symphatizing opinion,people have been detained and persecuted for far less. What if you are spreading the terrorist propaganda? No one will see that as your right. Article 20) so all militaty draft violate human rights? Article 21) citizens of any country that does not accept democracy are having their human rights violated? The whole thing is silly. First of, most of the existing UN members did not sign. Of the members at the time, the vote to adopt this was not unanimous and therefore this document is not accepted by the sovreign governments of many nations at the time. You can say the UNDHR is the opinion of what some humans think a human right is,however it is far from a document all sovreign nations accepted as a defi ition of what rights humans have simply for being human. China and muslim countries combined alone would make up a population majority! The UN is not an authority nations are subject to. UNDHR is not a treaty adopted by nations. It simply defines these trems as the western majority if the time saw it fit. Now,there are rights almost all humans accept as rights such as the right to exist and the right to a fair trial (as applied by their society). These are obvious rights commonly accepted by most religions and an peoples. Or if that isn't a good argument then consider that even the US (the sit of the UN) has been and is currently violating many of the UNDHR articles systemically, a US person should probably not talk about enforcing UNHDR against other countries. Everyone tolerating terrorists having propaganda zoom calls would be the only way I can accept UNHDR application of freedom to express opinion on other nations as a human rights. My view: the UN is a diplomatic organization not an authority over nations. A document that can define universal human rights must be a treaty reviewed and accepted by legislative bodies of each signatory nation and it can be a universal right only if a super majority of nations and humans (counted by national populations) accept it as such. Look at the criticism section in wikipedia.
varjag 6y ago
Towards the Marketplace of Ideas Through Banning the Free Speech
jcytong 6y ago
Comparing Apple blocking apps might not be entirely accurate in this case because, the local law might require Zoom to supply data that identifies the attendees to CCP. This could lead to the loss of lives and/or imprisonment. eg Chen Qiushi, a civilian reporting on the ground of Wuhan during the pandemic is currently still missing after 126 days with no clear reason other than having too much international attention https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1271460191972634624?s=20 https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1271460191972634624...
fit2rule 6y ago
>What’s legal and what’s right are not the same thing, I look forward to Americans putting their war criminals in prison. Moral relativism doesn't help. For every company that has to comply with local laws, there is only one greater power that can overcome compliance with that requirement: war.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> and in countries with bad laws If EARN IT passes, the U.S. would be one of these countries.
growlist 6y ago
This is textbook globalism. If we don't fight it, it will end up making the whole world a horrible place to live.
HenryBemis 6y ago
> authoritarian leaders will they comply? Apologies for the seemingly seagull-ish comment/rant, but it is 100% true: "money talks, bullshit walks". Zoom is not going to miss out a 1bn ppl market because of ethics. Apple will not miss out a 1bn market because of ethics. Blackberry handed the keys to the kingdom so fast the heads of the tortured people were spinning, and the tale goes on and on. Autocratic regimes play by our (civilized) rules when they claim "local laws, terrorists, pedophiles", etc.)(hey our govs use the same narrative, right?) We don't stoop to their (autocratic regimes) level and ignore there legal (and unethical requests). Capitalism (aka money flowing from country A to country B) is cross-border, freedom-agnostic, and amoral (not IM-moral)(utter lack or morals instead of bad morals). I use a phone made in China, and thus allow a USA company reduce the number of workers in the USA market and increase dividend to its shareholders. That empowers China to continue its thing since all they care for is my money. Not my attention and my opinions. In the end, I help them get the power they seek. This is why we placed embargo to Iran, Russia, NK.. to teach them a lesson. But China? Too much £€¥$ at stake to isolate them. May the one without sin cast the first stone. We are all in this together unless we ALL boycott Zoom, Apple, Google, Cancerbook, and the rest until they either help CHANGE China, or we let them isolate and starve until the people will start the fight back.
- tomComb 6y ago
  Google is the one company that did walk away from a billion person market - and a strong, established position in it - when asked to censor, and you want to boycott then too? It's no wonder companies don't bother doing the right thing. People just ignore that massive sacrifice and pull out some other reason to not like Google.
  - sidibe 6y ago
    It really is silly to claim you want companies to behave in a certain way (not cooperate with China) and then paint them all with the same brush including those that are doing what you want.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I wrote this earlier, but the thread has become massive and hard to navigate so I figured I would respond to you here. Google's history isn't so clean either. They spun backing out of China as something they did in the interest of free speech, but it was more a response to them getting hacked by the CCP (it's still not clear what was stolen, but something big happened). More recently they were trying to re-enter the space with a search engine designed to fully comply with the CCP's censorship laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine) It's unclear what caused that to get shut down, but its leak and subsequent public pressure was probably a factor. That said, I still think people within these companies should try to do the right thing (specifically that includes developers like us that make up these companies).
DoubleGlazing 6y ago
In a perfect world the EU/US (and others with big tech presences) would have laws that state companies based in their jurisdictions can only operate in other countries where they aren't required to change their policies or practices in ways that would breach UN human rights guidelines.
hn_check 6y ago
Conflating Apple and Zoom is fucking ridiculous. Apple complies with Chinese law in China. Chinese products comply with US law in the US. There is no universe where Apple is going to change Chinese law, and arguments to that effect are stupid nonsense. Zoom applied Chinese law extraterritoriality to the US. THAT is reprehensible.
sneak 6y ago
This is the problem with services that censor sometimes. Everything will seem fine and great, and the will gain much popularity and even perhaps become de facto defaults, until one day in an emergency the thing that has always worked suddenly does not. We just also saw the article about Facebook censoring Messenger on behalf of employers. You’d have to be crazy if you think Gmail, IG DMs, Docs, Messenger, et c are not subject to the same sort of “but the military asked really nicely” occasional censorship. These platforms are inherently dangerous as a result. https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ Remember that time everyone shut off banking for Wikileaks, years prior to anyone in the organization being charged with any crime? Centralized censorship services are a direct path to a non-free society. We are already seeing certain topics memory holed off of YouTube, and many otherwise-reasonable people are calling for the same on Facebook despite Zuckerberg’s objections. Very soon it will be difficult, if not impossible, to publish an entire set of legal things, even in peacetime.
x3haloed 6y ago
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.
dathinab 6y ago
> 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). Honestly the US could kinda easily look it down. They already use and abuse the position they have to force all kind of trade regulations on companies, even such not seated in the US. They could use the same system to force companies to not undermine free speech, opinion and press. Through it won't happen as the people currently in power are them-self interested in undermining free speech, free opinion and free press....
mindB 6y ago
I'm 100% in agreement with you. Laws and ethics are only tenuously linked, and we must expect companies (made up of people) to act ethically first and foremost. It's interesting watching you expressing that opinion in opposition to the Chinese government/Zoom getting a very positive reaction. When I expressed a similar sentiment about the Spanish government/Github a few months ago, the reaction was much more mixed[1]. I wonder if it has more to do with the parties involved or just changing opinions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21398271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21398271 EDIT: scrolling further down, the reaction to your comment is far more negative than I had originally thought.
drummer 6y ago
I agree, the old forms of slavery were also legal but never morally right. We should focus on what is morally right.
Barrin92 6y ago
>What’s legal and what’s right are not the same thing[...]and in countries with bad laws (Middle East, China) What are bad laws, whatever people socialised in the anglosphere deem bad? You don't have a monopoly on ethics, sorry. Companies should behave legally, they're not the extended arm of the respective culture they reside in, because if they are we will constantly pester each other with our respective moral values and that's a recipe for conflict. The solution is pretty simple. Chinese companies need to stop censoring things in the US, the US needs to stop trying to spread its values beyond her own borders, and we can all do business in peace. What we don't need is countries with messianic attitudes interfering in each other's affairs, and to give businesses primacy over the law in sovereign nations.

f00_ 6y ago

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

barry-cotter 6y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications

monocasa 6y ago

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.

HALtheWise 6y ago
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 based in. I'm curious if you know of counterexamples. I'm not necessarily saying that US and Chinese laws are equivalent in this sense, but it does seem like something of a double standard.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  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.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    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?
    - jbay808 6y ago
      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.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
        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.

dicomdan 6y ago

The difference is that Zoom does China’s censorship outside of Chinese borders.

joyfulmantis 6y ago
These were accounts that were holding meetings with large amount of mainland chinese users. Whatsmore they admitted the blocking was a mistake caused by their inability to prevent users from joining a meeting by region, a functionality which they are now developing because of this problem.
- dannyw 6y ago
  I don’t think that’s an excuse at all. As an American, it’s fully within my rights to critique the CCP to as many mainlanders I want to, including holding meetings with mainlanders. They should have been never blocked.
  - joyfulmantis 6y ago
    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.
    - komali2 6y ago
      You certainly have the right, all humans do, even PRC citizens. It's the natural right of free speech. That some governments (the PRC, for example) have passed laws abridging that natural right means you'll suffer consequences for exercising that right anywhere CCP cronies can get their hands on you. I think it's an important distinction. Might doesn't make right.
    - alisonatwork 6y ago
      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 doesn't really matter to the Chinese government what the laws are in other countries, when it comes to suppressing speech. Meanwhile, Chinese officials and propaganda outlets continue to enjoy full freedom of speech in both social media and traditional media in the west. [1] https://www.axios.com/china-arrests-university-minnesota-twitter-e495cf47-d895-4014-9ac8-8dc76aa6004d.html https://www.axios.com/china-arrests-university-minnesota-twi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...

kfk 6y ago

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 operate today BUT also engage with them in conversations that matter to us like democracy and human rights.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> I think it’s far better to accept that’s how they operate today BUT also engage with them in conversations that matter to us like democracy and human rights. That's a nice idea, but China's approach is to deplatform those conversations.
whiddershins 6y ago
That’s creeping up on moral relativism and there is a huge corpus of relevant work decrying that position.
- kfk 6y ago
  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.

duxup 6y ago

Apple blocks things in China right? Zoom performs China's bidding globally.

systemvoltage 6y ago
Yea, bringing Apple into the picture dilutes what Zoom does. Not to mention things they do that we don’t even know. Why is that US gets muddled up with a truly authoritarian regime like the CCP. Shit is broken in America, but millions of people marched in last couple of weeks. I don’t think there is a possibility of any kind of anti-gov protests in China. Apple is an extremely privacy centric company to the point where it’s become it’s primary selling point. It’s advertising it proudly and backing up with real actionable steps - T2 chip, iMessage, Face ID, localized ML, etc.
Nextgrid 6y ago
When setting up an iPhone in China the “iCloud” is actually operated by a local third-party and has access to all the content. Most of Apple’s privacy promises and commitments go out the window when it comes to being in China.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

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 accounts outside of mainland China at Beijing's request Blocking accounts of non-Chinese at China’s request seem like an incredibly dumb move in the first instance. I wonder what motivated them to comply with that request. Aren’t a lot of the Zoom devs based in China? It’d seem fairly trivial then for China to demand compliance via those employees based there.

fossuser 6y ago
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 the right side of history the right thing to do is to walk away.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  While I’d like to agree, if all the good people walk away what are we left with? You might be right though.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I don't think the good people have to do nothing, they can work to help users circumvent the firewall via things like tor. It's really tempting to think that you're the good person helping in a messy situation (especially when it's also the easiest option to choose), but ultimately I think it's just rationalizing bad behavior. I think most people believe they're 'good', even those doing the censorship in China do it under some belief that they're keeping stability and unity to prevent Trump like stupidity and western influence - or the rise of religious extremism. They're regular people doing regular jobs for something they think is good. I think the actions matter, when you're doing bad things for some ambiguous influence I'm not sure how good you really are.

dheera 6y ago

> 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 should not be subject to local laws. Although this may be an unpopular opinion, and given the HN climate it's likely I'm going to get downvoted to hell for saying this, but I personally think the same should be true of GDPR. GDPR is an EU law and the EU has no right to impose its EU laws on the US or anywhere else. Neither does China. It doesn't matter if the laws are good or bad laws -- laws should stay within their jurisdiction. Letting the EU have their way is a slippery slope of a precedent for other countries who may have less-noble laws they want imposed on the US. (That said, the US can implement its own version of GDPR for US businesses, but US businesses shouldn't be subject to EU laws).

bonestormii_ 6y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you actually, and in spirit, I definitely do. But what's to stop a European from hosting content on USA servers, posing as USA company, and violating their regulation--even specifically targeting users local to their area from that remote server? Granted, if significant revenue is generated they'll have to exist officially in one place or another in order to report the income, but not all such sites would need to generate such income, and could forgo it specifically for the purpose of violating local regulations in some cases.
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  > But what's to stop a European from hosting content on USA servers, posing as USA company, and violating their regulation--even specifically targeting users local to their area from that remote server? That’s what customs and border control is ultimately for: to ensure that goods being imported are compliant with local laws. In the case of data, this means national firewalls— something that would fundamentally change how the internet works.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dannyw 6y ago

Example: Google famously exited China.

darawk 6y ago

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 trying to liberalize China through foreign exposure. It's a tough call, though. It's not a decision I would want to have to make, that's for sure.

fossuser 6y ago
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.
- darawk 6y ago
  > 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.
  - bitcurious 6y ago
    Yes but that Chinese company won’t be able to censor the other ~7 Billion people on Earth.
  - x3haloed 6y ago
    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.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Zoom has many employees in China, don’t they? If they lose their business license, they’ll lose those employees. Imagine losing half your company almost overnight. How well would you do?

fossuser 6y ago
I think that’s just evidence that this isn’t an issue they ever cared about. They were planning to just censor whatever the CCP wanted from the beginning, their “mistake” was extending this to a US account because they don’t have the granularity to separate out mainland China users (which itself should be disturbing since they’re clearly not walling things off to protect accounts the CCP shouldn’t have access to). They’re in this position because they don’t think what they’re doing is unethical in the first place. I still think it’s wrong, I wouldn’t have been in China in the first place because of this.
Lio 6y ago
This strikes me as equivalent to outsourcing to a country with lax environmental protection to cut costs. Personal opinion but Zoom shouldn’t be allowed to undercut firms using developers based in liberal democracies and still have market access to the West.

mkhpalm 6y ago

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?

fossuser 6y ago
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.
- jcytong 6y ago
  Yes it's hard so it's up to the consumer because we also have agency - to stop and say no to businesses like that. It's the CCP playbook. To entice western companies with its lucrative market and at the same time continue its totalitarian regime and oppression. It becomes harder and harder for these companies to "do the right thing" as its influence and market grows. It'll continue to feed the "China way" as simply an alternative to the democracy. At some point, it becomes so big that it's impossible to reverse course. The reality is that when other companies see that Zoom can get by, it'd be harder for them say no because looking the other way when the bully is around becomes the norm.
monokh 6y ago
Zoom can either a) Keep their moral code and be happy in the idea that they will probably be cut off from that market (China) or b) Drop their morals, appease to the local laws as unjust as they may be in the hope that their business there continues. They chose the latter and still want to pretend they are doing both. That's a problem.

Melting_Harps 6y ago

> When Zoom is requested to send over names and videos of political dissidents to authoritarian leaders will they comply? No, the CCP will just get the UN (according to Humans Right Lawyer at the UN) to do it for them: https://thehumanoid.net/un-whistleblower-emma-reilly-un-human-rights-council-china-emails-dissidents-uighurs-tibet-xinjiang-unhrc/ https://thehumanoid.net/un-whistleblower-emma-reilly-un-huma... Cool handle, I wished more people would just stop using propriety closed source software, we can at least try and make inroads that way. Because realistically no fledgling startup going after marketshare is going to realistically turn down CCP money, and will accept what ever they have to gain access to China and this is why its so dangerous why they have infiltrated this space as this is just one example of so many violations due to it. God only knows what all of those facial recognition companies with CCP blessing have done.

6AA4FD 6y ago
I'm very suspicious of this article. I've watched a decent bit of the interview, and I'm concerned about the lack of verification that she is in fact a UN employee as she claims, and the absence of any incriminating emails she mentions in the interview. Quick edit: It just occurred to me to search for other articles by the whistleblower's name. I still don't see any evidence so I am skeptical, but anyone else reading should have the chance to judge for themselves. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292510/un-human-rights-council-emails-sent-to-china-dissident-Uighur-Tibet-hong-kong-Gao-Zhisheng https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292510/un-human-rights... https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human-rights-office-china-dissidents https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human-rights-office-china-d...
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  Interesting, I havevn't followed up on it, but the UN recently did come out to deny these claims in a recent press conference, which didn't deny she was an employee there. But you're right details are not easy to self-verify; but given what the CCP has done and continue to do with the WHO is it really all that far-fetched to see they paid off a bunch if UN members to pass them information. Consider how the US needed operatives/assets inside the Iranian nuclear program to deploy what eventually would become Stuxnet-gate.

jeswin 6y ago

It's unfair to lay the blame squarely on private companies when things like this happen. If we have to defend freedom, democratic nations need to step up. The US probably will (for various reasons), but Europe won't. Europe will speak up and act when it comes to smaller nations, but will continue to do $550B in trade with China without complaining. There has never been a peaceful rise of a dictatorship. Hong Kong and South China Sea today, Taiwan is next. The future is scary.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

The alternative is to not be in China at all. The problem with that of course, if that the softwares that do comply will suddently win an unfair market advantage against the ones taking a moral stand.

Lio 6y ago
There is an argument that where China is blocking market access, the West should reciprocate. If Zoom is a Chinese company with just a registered US office as has been suggested, then it would appear to be an attempt to circumvent that.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  > There is an argument that where China is blocking market access, the West should reciprocate. Faire point. But what I'm expecting that we already do it: we probably ask for modifications in their software as well, it's not not something we talk about. > If Zoom is a Chinese company with just a registered US office as has been suggested, then it would appear to be an attempt to circumvent that. I would think it's more of a PR move. WeChat has such a reputation it would never make it into the west.
- totony 6y ago
  >There is an argument that where China is blocking market access, the West should reciprocate. I'm not sure following local laws is considered as protectionism if the same standard is applied to local companies. Blocking market access would be applying unequal standards depending on origin (which I don't allege that they don't do - but for this particular case it doesn't look like they do).
fomine3 6y ago
This. Google does this for a long time while competitors don't do this but weirdly Google isn't praised well in HN or other places.
- fossuser 6y ago

badrabbit 6y ago

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 something about it with or without peace. The only exception is human rights violations which you didn't list in your opinion. Short of that, how dare you imply a company should break laws for political reasons? If Facebook helped russia inferfere with your elections would that be ok? because they agree with Russian politics or are you saying the western and democratic way is right and all else should only be tolerated when convenient?

ellimilial 6y ago
Not that suppression of said rights leads to violation of (what is a current consensus of)of human rights. Ironically, those events were hosted for remembrance of those violations. A fantastic approach meant at justifying non-interest, always present in the history of totalitarian regimes.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> 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.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  Article 18: most muslims disagree,many islam countries would kill you for conversion Article 19: this one is silly, every government would persecute you for holding certain opinions even without expressing those opinions. Look at how alleged communists in the US were treated around the time this document was drafted. Or consider holding an ISIS or islamic terrorism symphatizing opinion,people have been detained and persecuted for far less. What if you are spreading the terrorist propaganda? No one will see that as your right. Article 20) so all militaty draft violate human rights? Article 21) citizens of any country that does not accept democracy are having their human rights violated? The whole thing is silly. First of, most of the existing UN members did not sign. Of the members at the time, the vote to adopt this was not unanimous and therefore this document is not accepted by the sovreign governments of many nations at the time. You can say the UNDHR is the opinion of what some humans think a human right is,however it is far from a document all sovreign nations accepted as a defi ition of what rights humans have simply for being human. China and muslim countries combined alone would make up a population majority! The UN is not an authority nations are subject to. UNDHR is not a treaty adopted by nations. It simply defines these trems as the western majority if the time saw it fit. Now,there are rights almost all humans accept as rights such as the right to exist and the right to a fair trial (as applied by their society). These are obvious rights commonly accepted by most religions and an peoples. Or if that isn't a good argument then consider that even the US (the sit of the UN) has been and is currently violating many of the UNDHR articles systemically, a US person should probably not talk about enforcing UNHDR against other countries. Everyone tolerating terrorists having propaganda zoom calls would be the only way I can accept UNHDR application of freedom to express opinion on other nations as a human rights. My view: the UN is a diplomatic organization not an authority over nations. A document that can define universal human rights must be a treaty reviewed and accepted by legislative bodies of each signatory nation and it can be a universal right only if a super majority of nations and humans (counted by national populations) accept it as such. Look at the criticism section in wikipedia.

varjag 6y ago

Towards the Marketplace of Ideas Through Banning the Free Speech

jcytong 6y ago

Comparing Apple blocking apps might not be entirely accurate in this case because, the local law might require Zoom to supply data that identifies the attendees to CCP. This could lead to the loss of lives and/or imprisonment. eg Chen Qiushi, a civilian reporting on the ground of Wuhan during the pandemic is currently still missing after 126 days with no clear reason other than having too much international attention https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1271460191972634624?s=20 https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1271460191972634624...

fit2rule 6y ago

>What’s legal and what’s right are not the same thing, I look forward to Americans putting their war criminals in prison. Moral relativism doesn't help. For every company that has to comply with local laws, there is only one greater power that can overcome compliance with that requirement: war.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

> and in countries with bad laws If EARN IT passes, the U.S. would be one of these countries.

growlist 6y ago

This is textbook globalism. If we don't fight it, it will end up making the whole world a horrible place to live.

HenryBemis 6y ago

> authoritarian leaders will they comply? Apologies for the seemingly seagull-ish comment/rant, but it is 100% true: "money talks, bullshit walks". Zoom is not going to miss out a 1bn ppl market because of ethics. Apple will not miss out a 1bn market because of ethics. Blackberry handed the keys to the kingdom so fast the heads of the tortured people were spinning, and the tale goes on and on. Autocratic regimes play by our (civilized) rules when they claim "local laws, terrorists, pedophiles", etc.)(hey our govs use the same narrative, right?) We don't stoop to their (autocratic regimes) level and ignore there legal (and unethical requests). Capitalism (aka money flowing from country A to country B) is cross-border, freedom-agnostic, and amoral (not IM-moral)(utter lack or morals instead of bad morals). I use a phone made in China, and thus allow a USA company reduce the number of workers in the USA market and increase dividend to its shareholders. That empowers China to continue its thing since all they care for is my money. Not my attention and my opinions. In the end, I help them get the power they seek. This is why we placed embargo to Iran, Russia, NK.. to teach them a lesson. But China? Too much £€¥$ at stake to isolate them. May the one without sin cast the first stone. We are all in this together unless we ALL boycott Zoom, Apple, Google, Cancerbook, and the rest until they either help CHANGE China, or we let them isolate and starve until the people will start the fight back.

tomComb 6y ago
Google is the one company that did walk away from a billion person market - and a strong, established position in it - when asked to censor, and you want to boycott then too? It's no wonder companies don't bother doing the right thing. People just ignore that massive sacrifice and pull out some other reason to not like Google.
- sidibe 6y ago
  It really is silly to claim you want companies to behave in a certain way (not cooperate with China) and then paint them all with the same brush including those that are doing what you want.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I wrote this earlier, but the thread has become massive and hard to navigate so I figured I would respond to you here. Google's history isn't so clean either. They spun backing out of China as something they did in the interest of free speech, but it was more a response to them getting hacked by the CCP (it's still not clear what was stolen, but something big happened). More recently they were trying to re-enter the space with a search engine designed to fully comply with the CCP's censorship laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine) It's unclear what caused that to get shut down, but its leak and subsequent public pressure was probably a factor. That said, I still think people within these companies should try to do the right thing (specifically that includes developers like us that make up these companies).

DoubleGlazing 6y ago

In a perfect world the EU/US (and others with big tech presences) would have laws that state companies based in their jurisdictions can only operate in other countries where they aren't required to change their policies or practices in ways that would breach UN human rights guidelines.

hn_check 6y ago

Conflating Apple and Zoom is fucking ridiculous. Apple complies with Chinese law in China. Chinese products comply with US law in the US. There is no universe where Apple is going to change Chinese law, and arguments to that effect are stupid nonsense. Zoom applied Chinese law extraterritoriality to the US. THAT is reprehensible.

sneak 6y ago

This is the problem with services that censor sometimes. Everything will seem fine and great, and the will gain much popularity and even perhaps become de facto defaults, until one day in an emergency the thing that has always worked suddenly does not. We just also saw the article about Facebook censoring Messenger on behalf of employers. You’d have to be crazy if you think Gmail, IG DMs, Docs, Messenger, et c are not subject to the same sort of “but the military asked really nicely” occasional censorship. These platforms are inherently dangerous as a result. https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ Remember that time everyone shut off banking for Wikileaks, years prior to anyone in the organization being charged with any crime? Centralized censorship services are a direct path to a non-free society. We are already seeing certain topics memory holed off of YouTube, and many otherwise-reasonable people are calling for the same on Facebook despite Zuckerberg’s objections. Very soon it will be difficult, if not impossible, to publish an entire set of legal things, even in peacetime.

x3haloed 6y ago

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.

dathinab 6y ago

> 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). Honestly the US could kinda easily look it down. They already use and abuse the position they have to force all kind of trade regulations on companies, even such not seated in the US. They could use the same system to force companies to not undermine free speech, opinion and press. Through it won't happen as the people currently in power are them-self interested in undermining free speech, free opinion and free press....

mindB 6y ago

I'm 100% in agreement with you. Laws and ethics are only tenuously linked, and we must expect companies (made up of people) to act ethically first and foremost. It's interesting watching you expressing that opinion in opposition to the Chinese government/Zoom getting a very positive reaction. When I expressed a similar sentiment about the Spanish government/Github a few months ago, the reaction was much more mixed[1]. I wonder if it has more to do with the parties involved or just changing opinions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21398271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21398271 EDIT: scrolling further down, the reaction to your comment is far more negative than I had originally thought.

drummer 6y ago

I agree, the old forms of slavery were also legal but never morally right. We should focus on what is morally right.

Barrin92 6y ago

>What’s legal and what’s right are not the same thing[...]and in countries with bad laws (Middle East, China) What are bad laws, whatever people socialised in the anglosphere deem bad? You don't have a monopoly on ethics, sorry. Companies should behave legally, they're not the extended arm of the respective culture they reside in, because if they are we will constantly pester each other with our respective moral values and that's a recipe for conflict. The solution is pretty simple. Chinese companies need to stop censoring things in the US, the US needs to stop trying to spread its values beyond her own borders, and we can all do business in peace. What we don't need is countries with messianic attitudes interfering in each other's affairs, and to give businesses primacy over the law in sovereign nations.