6 ms·
IIRC, the banning accounts part isn't new info. They were called out for it and I think their reasoning was that at the time they didn't have a way to just bloc
by dx87 6y ago
IIRC, the banning accounts part isn't new info. They were called out for it and I think their reasoning was that at the time they didn't have a way to just block certain regions from a meeting, so they banned the meetings altogether because people from China were joining them, and they wanted to stay on the CCPs good side.
- wbl 6y agoThis indictment shows that was a pack of lies. This wasn't corporate policy working through regular channels.
- yorwba 6y agoThe complaint by the DOJ alleges that > Jin and his co-conspirators fabricated evidence of TOS violations to provide justification for terminating the meetings, as well as certain participants’ accounts. Jin then tasked a high-ranking employee of Company-1 in the United States to effect the termination of meetings and the suspension and cancellation of user accounts. Which does sound like corporate policy working through regular channels, but those channels were compromised.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoIt's not regular US corporate policy to operate at the behest of the Chinese government.
- yorwba 6y agoIt is for US companies operating in China. In any case, it appears that the fabricated evidence was intended to suggest to the employee in charge of terminating accounts that the targeted users were violating US law in addition to Chinese law.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoIt is not normal for a US company to share data with a foreign government and hide that from the public.
- yorwba 6y agoI was inclined to agree with you, but then I remembered the case of Saudi Arabia's guys inside Twitter: https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-insiders-saudi-arabia-spy/ https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-insiders-saudi-arabia-sp...
- unityByFreedom 6y agoSpies are not normal.