Are Tech Companies Censoring Their Users For Access to China's Market?

This week MSNBC published an opinion piece from a researcher on China (who works on internet censorship and freedom of expression issues) from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch. It examines specific exchanges between a China-based Zoom executive and employees at the company's California headquarters (taken from the 47-page complaint filed by America's Justice Department) showing how Zoom disrupted video meetings commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown: It was a fascinating read, not least because few global tech companies that do business in China have ever made public the details of their communications with Chinese authorities on censorship issues, despite repeated calls to do so from human rights organizations and United Nations experts. What the complaint reveals is Beijing's aggressive pursuit of global censorship of topics deemed sensitive or critical of Beijing, and Zoom's failure to adequately protect its users' rights to free expression and privacy... Beijing has long leveraged market access to compel foreign tech companies to meet its censorship demands, whether in China or abroad. Apple has removed hundreds of virtual private network (VPN) apps from China's App Store. In 2019, it also removed a mapping app widely used by pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong from the App Store. LinkedIn blocked content critical of Chinese authorities for users in China. From the complaint, one can see Zoom's fear that if it didn't terminate meetings or suspend accounts upon request, it risked having its China operation shut down at any time, which loomed large in all of its decisions. Companies understandably want access to China's huge market, but they also have a responsibility to respect human rights under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Zoom said publicly that it is "dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas," but when Jin repeatedly framed speech critical of the Chinese government as something that could "do bad things" or "illegal activities," and demanded they be censored, he met no resistance or got any questions from his colleagues at headquarters. The article also blames Jin for making false claims to a Zoom colleague that a private Tiananmen commemoration meeting was supporting terrorism/inciting violence, after which "the colleague quickly terminated the meeting and suspended the host account without any investigation into the matter." And it alleges that Jin also forwarded complaints from operatives who'd intentionally joined public meetings with offending content so those meetings could then be reported and shut down, while "a U.S.-based Zoom employee, knowing they were schemes, facilitated it..."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8859861 https://ift.tt/38FpZpH