Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Zoom will continue censoring calls at China’s request – Quartz

Zoom is the latest technology company to find itself caught between the competing demands of growing its business, upholding the ideals of an open internet, and acceding to censorship requests from China.

In a statement yesterday, the US-based video-conferencing company admitted to shutting down meetings held to commemorate those who died during the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in China, and suspending the accounts of two activists and Humanitarian China, a US-based organization of exiled Chinese activists at the direct request of Beijing, who said the meetings were illegal. There are no Chinese laws stipulating that activities related to the June 4 massacre are illegal, but people in China, except Hong Kong, have been banned from holding any vigils or posting words related to the incident online. The accounts were suspended between late May and early June, according to the activists.

The statement, which gives outsiders a rare glimpse into how Chinese censorship of American firms take place, explains that of the four meetings flagged by Chinese authorities, three were shut down because a significant number of participants were based in mainland China. The fourth, which didnt have attendees located in China, was left uncensored.

Particularly noteworthy is Zooms evident attempt at threading a fine needle: within a span of a few short paragraphs, it simultaneously chastised governments for censoring their own citizens, while pledging to improve its own censorship mechanisms to better address censorship requests from different states. It sounded a contrite note over its inability to be surgically precise in its censorship, saying it could have anticipated this need to block participants by country, which would have allowed them to keep the meetings running despite significant repercussions.

While news of Zooms censorship has sparked an uproar, some say its actions are par for the course. This is honestly fairly standard for all the tech companies, said Lokman Tsui, assistant professor of journalism at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. [Zoom was] caught off guard because they were growing so fast and didnt foresee the need for this kind of technology. So this is just part of their growing pains. The technology to target specific users based on location will only get more sophisticated because it is hugely lucrative for the advertising industry, he added, and the same technology can be co-opted and appropriated for censorship reasons.

Zooms compliance with Beijings censorship requests raises a number of pressing questions about what users can expect of the service going forward. James Millward, a professor of Chinese history at Georgetown University, is concerned about the safety of Chinese students studying abroad and their families at home. And if other countries make their own censorship demands on Zoom, one could plausibly foresee a messy matrix of different rules for different Zoom users, potentially disrupting the companys mission of making global communications frictionless.

Zooms statement could use some clarification of what they are going to do with features, and of course we have to see what those features look like in action, said Rui Zhong, a program associate at the Wilson Center, a think tank, in Washingon, DC. But for Chinese users, this is the latest chapter in a series of tech feature limitations that goes back to the mid 2000s, when Facebook and Google and Twitter were shut out via the firewall.

In a statement to Quartz, a Zoom representative said the company regrets that participants both inside and outside of China were negatively impacted and important conversationsdisrupted, but that [i]t is not in Zooms power to change the laws of governments opposed to free speech. The representative added that for situations where local authorities block communications for participants within their borders, Zoom is developing additional capabilities that protect these conversations for participants outside of those borders.

China has imposed a virtual firewall that forbids its citizens from accessing major foreign websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube since 2006. In reality, some Chinese internet users are still browsing foreign websites with the help of the virtual private networks which can circumvent the firewall, although this practice has become increasingly dangerous and difficult in recent years.

US-based Zhou Fengsuo,president of Humanitarian China, said he was not satisfied with Zooms statement. Although it acknowledged that the company had made a mistake in suspending the accounts, Zoom needs to give more information such as which Chinese department had raised the suspension requests to them, he told Quartz.

Zhou, a former student leader during the Tiananmen protests, said that he did not wish to see Zoom use a geography-based censorship mechanism because that would amount to the company bowing to Beijing, as well as enhancing Chinas firewall and consolidating the segregation of the internet.

Wang Dan, another US-based former Tiananmen student leader who also had his account temporarily suspended, told Quartz that he has hired a lawyer and is considering taking legal action against Zoom. Lee Cheuk-yan, a Hong Kong politician who organizes the citys annual June 4 candlelight vigil, is the second individual activist who saw his account suspended. All three accounts have been reinstated after Zoom realized they were based in Hong Kong and the US, according to the statement.

Zoom is certainly not the first American tech company to find itself in such a situation. Apple, for example, does significant business in China, but is at the same time expected to preach Western standards on issues like freedom of speech. Recently, it came under fire for removing a Hong Kong protest app from its app store. Microsoft-owned Skype, before it was completely removed from app stores in China in 2017, also had a China-only version of its software that censored a specific list of words.

At the core of the issue is whether those companies should uphold their American values even if that means they giving up on the lucrative China market, as Google did, or continue their operations in the country by compromising certain practices such as adopting advanced censorship systems. Google, which initially accommodated Chinese censorship requests in 2006 in order to operate there, eventually decided to shutter its search product in China in 2010 after it detected attempts from China to hack into Gmail accounts, including those of human-rights activists.A plan to re-enter the market with a censored version of its search engine was scrapped last year.

Zhou said he agrees with the path that Google chose when faced with Chinas restrictions, but also noted that as it is difficult for a single American company to stand up to Beijing, the US government should help, for example, with countermeasures to force China to open up its internet.

Read more:
Zoom will continue censoring calls at China's request - Quartz

Removing ‘Gone With the Wind’ from HBO Max is censorship – Los Angeles Times

To the editor: I am shocked that screenwriter, director and novelist John Ridley demanded the elimination of Gone with the Wind from the HBO Max streaming service, and that HBO caved.

Yes, Gone with the Wind portrays slavery in a benign light, and it could not be remade today without a major rewrite to dramatize the horrors of slavery and include multidimensional Black characters. It is also a major landmark in film history and one of the most popular movies ever made.

Censorship is wrong, even if its done by anti-racists demanding to suppress a film that, for all its glorification of the lost cause, also presents a heroine who grows from a shallow schemer into a woman of strength and power. Besides, removing Gone with the Wind prevents viewers from seeing the first performance by a Black actor to win an Academy Award.

Mark Gabrish Conlan, San Diego

..

To the editor: Thank you for publishing Ridleys timely essay about the 1939 film Gone With the Wind. Many of my elders considered this film nonfiction, depicting the truth about the Civil War.

Rebel soldiers like Ashley Wilkes were dashing, romantic heroes to them. They truly believed that the so-called cause the Confederacy fought for was righteous and sacred.

Bravo to HBO for its decision to pull it from their lineup. I agree with Ridley: The film should be shown, but with panel discussions and interviews to help viewers understand the harm this kind of propaganda has caused.

Marcia Harlan, Idyllwild

..

To the editor: I appreciated Ridleys piece urging HBO not to show Gone With the Wind.

In 2001, a parody novel was published entitled The Wind Done Gone, a retelling of the story of Gone With the Wind from the standpoint of one of the slaves. I wonder if there has been any consideration of making a movie based on that novel.

John T. Donovan, Hacienda Heights

Excerpt from:
Removing 'Gone With the Wind' from HBO Max is censorship - Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor of Barrons – Barron’s

To the Editor: Once censorship occurs, a platform can never be trusted again (Jack Dorseys Biggest Fight Yet, Cover Story, June 5).

Sure, today it may be a political position you agree with, but tomorrow this may change. Users and advertisers must now be looking over their shoulders asking whether this runs afoul of the censors. This becomes an added risk for all users.

Why do people feel the need to protect the public from political language they feel is incorrect or offensive? Is the filter to ban everything that may set off the violence-prone, the mentally ill, or gun owners? Then Catcher in the Rye would be banned by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and his censors.

I do not believe much of anything I see or hear on the news shows, cable, or the internet. Many of President Donald Trumps tweets are nonsensical. Twitters 280-character limit does not allow for explanation and understanding.

This is a platform designed for rants and slogans. If you believe in free speech and the ability of the public to think, you would best steer clear of Twitter.

Don Knife, Rocky River, Ohio

To the Editor:The table showing that Facebook and Twitter had annual revenue of $30 and $20 per user, respectively, was very enlightening. It seems to me that there are enough users of these platforms who are now persuaded that the ad-based model is a failed experiment, and would now be willing to pay $20 or $30 a year to subscribe to equivalent community platforms that are free of ads, clickbait, and disinformation.

Without the overhead of managing the ad environment, an ad-free subscription-funded platform should be able to make a tidy profit while providing useful, curated, fact-checked news.

Dennis Strauss, entura, Calif.

To the Editor:Your article really struck a chord in me (Can Big Business Fix Racial Injustice? It Has to Try. Heres How, June 5).

Im a 62-year-old Latina who was driven to succeed after graduating from Indiana University business school in the class of 1984. I knocked on countless doors, read dozens of job-success books, and dressed and acted the part; yet the best offers I got were for secretary/reception.

I updated and modernized a few office systems and kept being passed up for promotions. Even after proving my financial effectiveness for bosses, request for promotions resulted in recently hired, white temps getting the better jobs.

Decades later, I proved myself as a sought-out Montessori teacher by parents, students, faculty, and staff for effective, compassionate, knowledgeable, dedicated work.

Yet here I sit dreading having to work two unfulfilling jobs (downsizing from three) and unable to have any pleasure in life, as I only live and work to pay off bills.

Jobs and prospective positions (even as a bilingual, certified teacher applying to Title 1 schools with a majority of Latino students) have brushed me aside to make room for white, recent grads.

Thank you for your article, which reminded me that its not me; its the system.

Yolanda Casillas Ochoa, Sarasota, Fla.

To the Editor:Your article Amid U.S-China Tensions, Active Managers Are Buying (June 5) describes the various ways that investors could invest in Chinese stocks if they were to be delisted on U.S. markets. Sure, the growth potential in Chinese stocks seems high, but why would people take the increased risks in buying Chinese stocks?

When Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse performed Dancing in the Dark, it was the epitome of grace and elegance. Dancing in the dark, however, is not a good strategy for financial investing. The Chinese government has forced Chinese companies to put a virtual blackout on meaningful financial disclosure. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has no visibility into Chinese company financial data.

Honestly, would you buy a new car if you went to the makers website and it had a bunch of pretty pictures but no information about the cars performance or safety features?

Arthur M. Shatz, Oakland Gardens, N.Y.

To the Editor:The article Merger Arbs Are Confident Despite Whispers on Tiffany Deal (June 4) states that Taubman Centers shares at [a then] $44 trade at a 15% discount to Simon Property Groups offer of $52.50 a share. While technically correct, that is not how professional merger arbs evaluate a deal; it would be more appropriate to state the percentage increase from the current price to the offer price, which at the prices stated in the article would amount to a 19.32% return.

Edward Taussig, Brooklyn, N.Y.

To the Editor:I think the general feeling was, this jobs report will stink but it didnt stink as badly as we thought it would (Why the Jobs Report Isnt Quite as Good as It Seems, Up & Down Wall Street, June 5). The job numbers wont resemble what we saw at the beginning of the year because businesses have opened at a diminished capacity, unemployment payments are like a raise for many, some companies wont survive, and most will probably tread cautiously until they know what the reopened economy looks like. Career politicians found it easy to close businesses, but few to none have ever opened a business (at least one that didnt fail). So their so-called guidance will probably mess things up for a while to come.

Terrence Milan, On Barrons.com

Send letters to: mail@barrons.com. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writers name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.

Original post:
Letters to the Editor of Barrons - Barron's

Editors quit Russian newspaper, accusing boss of pro-Kremlin censorship – National Post

MOSCOW Five senior editors at Vedomosti, one of Russias most prominent business newspapers, resigned on Monday in protest at the appointment of an editor-in-chief they say has applied pro-Kremlin censorship to its coverage.

Their resignation, reported by Vedomosti itself, occurred after the publications acting editor-in-chief, Andrei Shmarov, was confirmed to the post by the publishers board of directors.

The five editors Dmitry Simakov, Boris Safronov, Philip Sterkin, Kirill Kharatyan and Alexander Gubsky all served as Shmarovs deputies, Vedomosti reported.

We do not find it possible to work with an editor-in-chief who with his actions has shown that he doesnt care about rules, standards and principles, Safronov, the deputy editor-in-chief who has worked for the paper since 1999, told Reuters.

One reporter in April publicly complained that Shmarov had forbidden negative coverage of President Vladimir Putins plans to change the constitution so that he could potentially stay in power until 2036, and said that Shmarov had threatened to fire those who defied the ban.

Others said Shmarov had barred publication of opinion polls carried out by a research firm that had irritated the Kremlin.

Shmarov told Reuters at the time that he had not threatened to sack anyone and that his editorial decisions were his own and not the result of any instructions given by anyone else, including from any government or business structure.

Shmarov said on Monday he could not immediately comment.

Until recently, Vedomosti had been widely regarded as one of the few high profile publications in Russia not to be under the direct control of the authorities or businessmen with ties to the Kremlin.

Shmarov was appointed acting editor-in-chief at the end of March, after it was announced that two businessmen would be buying the newspaper. Journalists had called for the newspapers management to appoint someone else. (Additional reporting by Elena Fabrichnaya Editing by Mark Heinrich)

See the original post:
Editors quit Russian newspaper, accusing boss of pro-Kremlin censorship - National Post

Facebook apologizes after report it would censor ‘unionize’ on Workplace app – Fox Business

Hugh Johnson Advisors CIO Hugh Johnson explains why hes buying Facebook, MasterCard and Alphabet.

Facebook on Friday apologized afteran Interceptreport saidthe company would allow business administrators to censor certain words from employees like "unionize" onits office management platform, Facebook Workplace.

The report cites aninternal company meeting in which Facebook employees discussed the Workplace app, which allows users to communicate with coworkers using a professional interface withrecognizable Facebook features like News Feed, Groups, Chat andRoom.

The company said during the meeting that there are "benefits" to"content control" for administrators, giving the example of the word "unionize" as one that business leaders might choose to censor on the platform, The Intercept reported.

The Facebook signup web page on a laptop and the Facebook app on a smartphone. (iStock)

"While these kinds of content moderation tools are useful for companies, this example should never have been used and we apologize for it," Facebook told FOX Business."The feature was only in early development and weve pulled any plans to roll it out while we think through next steps."

Walmart, the Singapore government, Discovery Communications, Starbucks, Campbell Soup Corporation and other large companies use Workplace, according to The Intercept.

FACEBOOK'S ZUCKERBERG FELT 'DISGUSTED' OVER TRUMP LOOTING POST: REPORT

Facebook has prided itself on promoting free speech on its platform and has even come under fire from employees and users alike who disagreed with the company's decision to not remove posts from President Trump in recent weeksthatTwitter decided to label or hide, highlighting the different ways social media companies choose to moderate content.

A number of Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout after it was revealed that the platform did not take the same action as Twitter against a Trump post saying, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" in reference to potential law enforcement action against violent protesters in the wake of George Floyd's death. Twitter hid the post and added a disclaimer while Facebook kept it up without labels.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended leaving the posts up; he has repeatedly said Facebook promotes free speechand voters have the right to make their own decisions regarding political posts and advertisements.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this, Zuckerberg told Fox News anchor Dana Perino on May 27.I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldnt be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. In general, private companies probably shouldnt be especially these platform companies shouldnt be in the position of doing that.

Trump signed an executive order in May that would require the Federal Communications Commission to re-examine some aspects of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives protections to social media companies so they are not held liable for what users post on their platforms but still allows those platforms to edit posts that they feel could pose a threat to users.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

View original post here:
Facebook apologizes after report it would censor 'unionize' on Workplace app - Fox Business