4 ms·

Same reason why Google censored itself for China in 2006. Did people think Google was a 'Chinese company'? Note that this was before Google set up a presence in

Same reason why Google censored itself for China in 2006. Did people think Google was a 'Chinese company'? Note that this was before Google set up a presence in China. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm

mapcars 6y ago
I don't see how it's the same. In Zoom's case organization was in US and call organization was in US and company works by US laws. Why would they censor these accounts? Google on the other hand had to do it to operate in China, had to submit to Chinese regulations. The same would be if they blocked Gmail of US citizens because of discussions related to China.
SahAssar 6y ago
I think you're missing the point. Google censored itself in china based on Chinese requests. Zoom censored itself in the US based on Chinese requests. There's a pretty big difference IMO.
tw04 6y ago
I guess I don't consider that the same thing at all. They're censoring searches coming from china to google.cn (hosted in China). They didn't really have a choice, the servers are in China, the users are in China. What they aren't doing is actively blocking users from China getting to www.google.com, and they aren't censoring searches Chinese users do on www.google.com because those resources aren't hosted in China and aren't subject to Chinese law. Zoom on the other hand IS blocking users from China accessing resources in the US and while they may have "undone" the ban, they banned US users from their platform for breaking a Chinese law that they aren't subject to. Namely talking about the Tienanmen Square massacre.
- g-b-r 6y ago
  they didn't have a choice not to use servers in China?
  - tw04 6y ago
    They actually didn't. Their options were filtered servers in China or no services in China at all. We can collectively be upset at their decision but they ARE beholden to their shareholders as a public company. Abandoning the Chinese market entirely is something they could've tried, but their major shareholders made it pretty clear there would be a change of leadership if they tried. Unless you've got a magic bullet to give Wall Street a conscience, that wasn't going to happen.
    - g-b-r 6y ago
      Ok it was the fault of their major shareholders, but then it's ok to make them pay their decision, I think (hoping that they're still holding those shares). By the way, in general my understanding is that the "beholden to their shareholders as a public company" (and thus forced to make the most remunerative decisions) belief is a myth, a public company is free to make ethical choices (if its major shareholders don't oppose them).

mapcars 6y ago

I don't see how it's the same. In Zoom's case organization was in US and call organization was in US and company works by US laws. Why would they censor these accounts? Google on the other hand had to do it to operate in China, had to submit to Chinese regulations. The same would be if they blocked Gmail of US citizens because of discussions related to China.

SahAssar 6y ago

I think you're missing the point. Google censored itself in china based on Chinese requests. Zoom censored itself in the US based on Chinese requests. There's a pretty big difference IMO.

tw04 6y ago

I guess I don't consider that the same thing at all. They're censoring searches coming from china to google.cn (hosted in China). They didn't really have a choice, the servers are in China, the users are in China. What they aren't doing is actively blocking users from China getting to www.google.com, and they aren't censoring searches Chinese users do on www.google.com because those resources aren't hosted in China and aren't subject to Chinese law. Zoom on the other hand IS blocking users from China accessing resources in the US and while they may have "undone" the ban, they banned US users from their platform for breaking a Chinese law that they aren't subject to. Namely talking about the Tienanmen Square massacre.

g-b-r 6y ago
they didn't have a choice not to use servers in China?
- tw04 6y ago
  They actually didn't. Their options were filtered servers in China or no services in China at all. We can collectively be upset at their decision but they ARE beholden to their shareholders as a public company. Abandoning the Chinese market entirely is something they could've tried, but their major shareholders made it pretty clear there would be a change of leadership if they tried. Unless you've got a magic bullet to give Wall Street a conscience, that wasn't going to happen.
  - g-b-r 6y ago
    Ok it was the fault of their major shareholders, but then it's ok to make them pay their decision, I think (hoping that they're still holding those shares). By the way, in general my understanding is that the "beholden to their shareholders as a public company" (and thus forced to make the most remunerative decisions) belief is a myth, a public company is free to make ethical choices (if its major shareholders don't oppose them).