Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks China The Internet United States

Zoom Closes Account of US-Based Chinese Activist After Tiananment Event (axios.com) 160

The U.S. video-conferencing company Zoom closed the account of a group of prominent U.S.-based Chinese activists after they held a Zoom event commemorating the 31st anniversary of the June 4 Tiananmen Square Massacre, Axios has learned. From the report: Zhou Fengsuo, founder of the U.S. nonprofit Humanitarian China and former student leader of the 1989 Tiananmen protests, organized the May 31 event held through a paid Zoom account associated with Humanitarian China. About 250 people attended the event. Speakers included mothers of students killed during the 1989 crackdown, organizers of Hong Kong's Tiananmen candlelight vigil, and others. On June 7th, the Zoom account displayed a message that it had been shut down, in a screenshot viewed by Axios. Zhou has not been able to access the account since then, and Zoom has not responded to his emails, he told Axios. A second Zoom account belonging to a pro-democracy activist, Lee Cheuk Yan, a former Hong Kong politician and pro-democracy activist, was also closed in late May. Lee has also received no response from Zoom. "We are outraged by this act from Zoom, a U.S company," Zhou and other organizers told Axios in a statement. "As the most commercially popular meeting software worldwide, Zoom is essential as an unbanned outreach to Chinese audiences remembering and commemorating Tiananmen Massacre during the coronavirus pandemic."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zoom Closes Account of US-Based Chinese Activist After Tiananment Event

Comments Filter:
  • Welcome to the CCP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @03:46PM (#60168598)

    You are all members now.

    • by egyas ( 1364223 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @03:48PM (#60168606)

      So true. It's sickening to see US companies knuckling under to the CCP.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @03:58PM (#60168640)

        What else do you expect when we're running an enormous trade deficit [census.gov]?

        Companies like Apple and Amazon send raw materials to China, they ship them back as imports. Who gets rich? The megacorporations who outsourced our manufacturing jobs to another country, kowtowed to their laws, and took the profit from us. Now China owns the US Treasury, and these corporations effectively have complete control of the US government [wikipedia.org].

        On top of all that upheaval in the power structure, they've also found it useful to keep the Constitutionally protected slave system in conjunction with an incomprehensibly large array of criminal laws, allowing them to enslave not just black people, but poor people of any race. Even if a white consumer, with their white privilege, gets uppity, they can be beaten into custody, overcharged, plead out, and left to rot in prison, as well as penalizing them for the remainder of their lives.

        Wake up, you wankers. Your political parties, left or right, don't matter when they have megacorporations with their arms shoved up every politician's ass to work the puppets' mouthpieces. Who do you think is paying for all of this?

        • 1st Amendment violatio ? I am just wondering where is the ACLU is ?
          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:20PM (#60168720)
            ACLU stopped caring about civil liberties when it became economically and politically expedient.
          • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:59PM (#60168828) Homepage

            1st Amendment violatio ?

            As it turns out, no. As I'm sure many people are going to point out, the 1st Amendment applies to government suppression of speech. Zoom is a private company; they can cancel the accounts of anybody they want and not violate the 1st amendment.

            I am just wondering where is the ACLU is ?

            Busy worrying about government violations of civil liberties.

            • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

              Except when it comes to that whole "freedom of religion" and the practice thereof; the ACLU has been amazingly silent on that part of the 1st Amendment.
              • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @07:46PM (#60169310)

                Dunderhead, is there some impoverished religion that has been banned and whose rights are being violated? Or do religions experience vast deference from the State, and there are no cases to even ask the ACLU about? Ahh, there we have it. All you have are cases that are actually about some other policy issue that somebody says "but my religion!" next to. Some dishonest bullshit. Actual religions are well funded in the US, and they defend their rights by hiring lawyers. There is no reason for the ACLU to take up those cases.

            • "A" for effort, discrimination is discrimination.
            • Zoom might be setup to appear Public, but it's controlled by the Chinese Government at least indirectly.
            • ACLU doesn't defend free speech cases that offend minorities anymore, and they're suing to overturn due process protections for students in college kangaroo courts. Unless you're a favored identity group, the ACLU is either ignoring or actively fighting for government civil rights abuses. (Also, black students are disproportionately harmed by false Title IX accusations, so even black people should remember the ACLU threw them under the bus because women outright rank them in the victimhood hierarchy).
          • Are brown people involved?

        • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @06:55PM (#60169176)
          U.S. trade deficit with China ($345 billion in 2019) is just 1.6% of its GDP ($21.43 trillion [bea.gov]).

          The U.S. economy is one of the most self-contained in the world (reliant on domestic trade rather than international trade). That makes it incredibly resilient against potential hostile actions of any single trade partner. Total International trade (absolute value of imports + exports) is only $3.89 trillion [wikipedia.org]. That puts the U.S. close to the bottom of countries by international trade vs GDP [wikipedia.org]. In the case of China, since the U.S. is predominantly the buyer rather than the seller, the U.S. can just take its business elsewhere, and manufacture in Vietnam, Thailand, India, etc.

          The only real threat China has over the U.S. is the ~$1 trillion in treasury securities it holds. If China were to dump those, it could drive up the price for the U.S. to acquire more debt (sell off more new securities). Basically it means it becomes more expensive for the U.S. to go into deficit spending. But that's only good for one shot. Once China sells them, it doesn't have them anymore so can't sell them again.
          • " If China were to dump those, it could drive up the price for the U.S. to acquire more debt (sell off more new securities). Basically it means it becomes more expensive for the U.S. to go into deficit spending"

            Except a) it is still pretty cheap for the US to issue new debt, and b) a large dump would depress the market price China could get. By managing the terms over which the US issued new debt it is plausible they could trade the new debt for old.

        • You thought bonds were stocks, is what you're saying.

          Stocks give ownership.

          Bonds are a promise to pay some money in the future. The person who received the promise is not empowered by that; they've taken a risk.

          Please, sell it! There is excess demand, it makes the market unprofitable. Why is the US stock market so high right now, even while everybody says that uncertainty is high and everything is overpriced? Because there is no safe haven right now. Bonds aren't profitable, because only US bonds are high q

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday June 11, 2020 @08:31AM (#60170698) Homepage Journal

          Google has hardware manufactured in China but also refuses to cooperate with China, hence most of its services are blocked there. It would actually be a huge source of revenue if they could open China up, most phones are already running Android but without the Google stuff, but they won't cooperate on censorship.

          Apple and Microsoft don't seem to have a problem implementing CCP filters though.

      • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:05PM (#60168662) Journal

        It's worse than that. Some of the western media have praised sports stars who knuckle under because of Hong Kong and dollars in their pocket, as showing "wisdom". The same media whose lifeblood is freedom of the press.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by egyas ( 1364223 )

          Yep! So many are bowing and scraping to that CCP money. Hollywood is one of the worst! Can't screen a movie in China unless part of it was filmed there these days. Or unless it openly slobbers on the glorious CCP. Make me ill.

          As every day passes, I watch less and less TV and movies, and read more and more books.

          • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @07:11PM (#60169216)

            How long has it been since we've heard "Free Tibet!" from anyone in Hollywood? I mean, other than Richard Gere, who is admirably one of the last holdouts, and who has paid a professional price for it.

            Most corporations these days are just as bad, willing to accept Chinese investment with apparently no thought of what that actually entails - being economically beholden to an authoritarian regime that is ideologically hostile to the US.

      • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:10PM (#60168688) Journal

        What really gets my goat is when a US company boldly resists the requests of the US government, but bends over backwards to help out the Chinese government. Fighting all oppressive governments is one thing, but if you're going to bend the knee, at least dance with who brung ya.

        • The difference is that US government spook requests can be legally challenged, vs. a Chinese censorship request where you either comply quickly or your site gets cut off from all Chinese web traffic. From a legal and practical business standpoint it makes sense. If the US was similarly authoritarian, sites would comply with US government surveillance requests just as quickly and easily.

          • by lgw ( 121541 )

            Indeed, the profit motive is a powerful motive. I dunno, has Zoom ever presented itself as one of these socially conscious progressive Bay Area companies? I mean, if they're up front about profit being their highest goal, at least I'd give them points for honesty.

        • by MikeKD ( 549924 )

          What really gets my goat is when a US company boldly resists the requests of the US government, but bends over backwards to help out the Chinese government. Fighting all oppressive governments is one thing, but if you're going to bend the knee, at least dance with who brung ya.

          Just name it: Apple [wired.com].

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday June 11, 2020 @08:33AM (#60170704) Homepage Journal

          It's okay, Zoom decided not to enable encryption for free accounts just to help out the US government.

          That company has a strong authoritarian streak.

      • by JDAustin ( 468180 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:26PM (#60168732)

        Zoom is a US company in name only. It's was started by a member of the ChiComs along with development being done in China.

      • Time for USA to play the National security card, like Huawei. One also thinks of unlwaful discrimination - come on 52 states. If they ban military on a military base - baited first - gotcha. Even the stock exchange may have listing rules that may have been breached. Many countries have very strict laws against holucast deniers. FCC may say beholden to foreign interests. That is the board and their directors are doing stockholders damage. One hopes for a sudden reversal, else a director spill.
    • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <hmryobemag>> on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:58PM (#60168826) Journal

      Capitalism demands it. It was inevitable once an authoritarian regime's market made up a large fraction of the global market.

      I'm sure lots of other countries aren't happy about their web services having to comply with FOSTA-SESTA either.

    • by pedz ( 4127433 )
      you forgot We Love You!
  • Huh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @03:51PM (#60168612)

    I wonder how "The company has acknowledged that much of its product development has been based in China" correlates with the FedRAMPed ZoomGov which promises that only US citizens touch it....

    • by guygo ( 894298 )

      I also wonder how they square calling themselves "a U.S company"

      • Simplest answer: they lie. In normal times, this might be something that just gets tisk-tisked at. But these are not normal times. I don't think people understand the size of the hornet's nest that just got kicked over in this country over the past three months.
        • by Corbets ( 169101 )

          Simplest answer: they lie. In normal times, this might be something that just gets tisk-tisked at. But these are not normal times. I don't think people understand the size of the hornet's nest that just got kicked over in this country over the past three months.

          Zoom? Lie? Never. [slashdot.org]

  • Trump needs to know about this!

  • by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @03:53PM (#60168626)
    Eric Yuan, Zoom's CEO, was born and educated in China. Tells you all you need to know as to where his loyalties lie when you see actions like this
    • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:09PM (#60168680)
      There's plenty of other U.S. companies or organizations that will bend over backwards to kiss the ass of the Chinese government. There was a huge shitstorm just last year about the NBA kowtowing to China last year [washingtonpost.com] over the Hong Kong protests. I remember Slashdot covering some of the controversy [slashdot.org] as it related to U.S. based games companies as well.

      Too bad the protesters who died at Tiananmen square weren't black. Apparently then all of these companies (including Zoom apparently [twitter.com]) would have thought their lives matter. Yes, I'm being flippant, but it really does show how pathetic and hollow these companies are that they'll care (well pretend to mostly) only when it's politically convenient.
      • bend over backwards to kiss the ass

        That comment created an "interesting" mental image.

      • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

        Too bad the protesters who died at Tiananmen square weren't black. Apparently then all of these companies (including Zoom apparently) would have thought their lives matter.

        No they wouldn't. There are still black slaves in Africa today. The only black lives that matter are the ones in the West who are the most privileged blacks who've ever lived.

      • by nagora ( 177841 )

        Too bad the protesters who died at Tiananmen square weren't black. Apparently then all of these companies (including Zoom apparently [twitter.com]) would have thought their lives matter. Yes, I'm being flippant

        Flippant or not your point is valid. In the UK we have mobs pulling down statues of long-forgotten slave traders while ignoring actual live modern slavery in the same city. But that's not what their demagogues have told them to be outraged about this month.

        People are very disappointing sometimes.

    • by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:14PM (#60168702)

      Not so simple. Where do Mr. Yuan's parents, siblings and other relatives live? What about his wife and her family? If they are in China, that changes things. Don't be too quick to knock a guy protecting his family.

      • by sentiblue ( 3535839 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:40PM (#60168772)
        I agree with you that if his family lives in China, he has no choice but to comply.

        Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to operate a business in US. If he wanted to do business here in this country, he should have known this day will come. Stealing may have been a forgivable offense, but treason is definitely not. He lives here since 97, he should have known that.
    • Eric Yuan, Zoom's CEO, was born and educated in China. Tells you all you need to know as to where his loyalties lie when you see actions like this

      May I add to your statement that this guy was one of the startup engineers of Webex. He continued working at Cisco for a long time after the acquisition until he came out on his own startup. Literally, he didn't just steal/censor for his own government, but also he stole from his previous employer to make his own product. There's no doubt some core part of zoom comes from webex.

      • by XXongo ( 3986865 )
        To be fair, he worked for Cisco because Cisco bought out the startup he'd been working at, WebEx. He actually pitched the idea to move the Webex platform over to become a low-bandwidth, smartphone-adapted videoconferencing system-- the idea that became Zoom--to Cisco, but they didn't want to go that direction, so he left and founded Zoom.

        https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]

    • Good point. Is there any chance the reason is more benign and yet horrible; does he have family they can threaten on China?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday June 11, 2020 @08:38AM (#60170730) Homepage Journal

      Tim Cook was born in the USA and Satya Nadella was born in India. They both cooperate with the Chinese government too, so where do their loyalties lie?

      I'm sorry but this is just xenophobia, it has nothing to do with where he was born and everything to do with that very American goal of making as much money as fast as possible.

  • How many times are we going to have to hear about a company bowing to China's demand that there should be no dissension, no reporting on its corruption, its oppression of various groups, and people get upset for two minutes then go back to buying all those Chinese-made products?

    This is like hearing about the ills of Amazon with its working conditions, low pay, asking the customers to pay for employee sick leave, the lack of reporting of infections and deaths due to covid-19 and people keep on buying from th

  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:01PM (#60168648) Journal

    I'm up for mandatory labeling on US companies that "this corporation censors its product on mandates from dictatorships outside of the dictatorship."

    For that matter, lets see how you feel about your next big blockbuster movie when it opens with that disclaimer for 10 seconds.

    • Hell, for films, you don't even need to go that far, as active censorship might be hard to prove. I'd imagine Hollywood is getting pretty good at self-censorship by now in anticipation of China's tastes. Reshoots cost money, after all

      "This film's content has been reviewed and approved by the People's Republic of China."

      100% verifiable and indisputable. If they submit a script or film to China, then the film should should, by law, be required to disclose that fact. Put that sucker right after the ratings

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      You might run into some First Amendment problems with that. If a private company *chooses* to remove content because China being mad will hurt their bottom line, they actually have a right to do that.

  • Totally fuck Zoom (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 )
    Totally fuck Zoom
  • by longk ( 2637033 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:06PM (#60168668)

    Zoom is a US company in the same way that Apple is an Irish company: in no way that matters.

    Everything that makes Zoom Zoom is in China.

    • good argument for banning certain software within the boarders of a given country. ( china does it , why don't others). Not the way I'd like to see the world go, but I'd rather we have no need for armies either. ( Still doesn't mean we don't) .

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:15PM (#60168704)

    ... and the US is doing all it can to protect private companies from the Constitutional restrictions that are applicable to the US government .

    Zoom is right there with Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies.

  • by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @04:28PM (#60168738)
    There are free, open source alternatives to commercial video conferencing services, which will always tend to censor you for whatever arbitrary reasons.

    Jitsi [jitsi.org], for example, is a free open source solution that anybody can host - or most easily use one of the many readily available public Jitsi instances [github.com] - which does not require any IT expertise.
    • by lorinc ( 2470890 )

      Good luck having a decent quality conference with more than 5 people on this...

      I'm all for open source, but I've not seen any solution scale as much as zoom. I attend seminars with 25+ people several times a week and the only ones that work are on zoom.

      If you know of a software that is open-source, cross-platform and works for 25+ people all having video enabled at the same time and all allowed to share their screen (not at the same time of course), I'll take it.

      • I attend seminars with 25+ people several times a week and the only ones that work are on zoom.

        I also do this and find Teams and GoToMeeting/GoToWebinar to work easily as well as Zoom. Teams has other superior organizational integration features as well, of course.

      • by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @05:49PM (#60168976)
        I've used Jitsi with more than 5 participants. It easily handed 15 participants on an ec2 m5 instance. Bandwidth, CPU, and memory usage wasn't that high, so probably could have handled more participants.

        One problem with Jitsi is that changing the branding is a bit of a chore. Also, integration with a directory service like LDAP maybe a hassle.

      • by ffkom ( 3519199 )

        Good luck having a decent quality conference with more than 5 people on this...

        I already participated in Jitsi-based video conferences with > 10 participants. Worked quite well. For participants that have narrow Internet connections, it makes sense to disable the "thumbnails" on their screen (press "f" or via menu), so they just need to receive the video from the current speaker.

        Unlike the commercial services that want to eavesdrop on your video signal, there is no need for the Jitsi server to decode/encode the video signals, thus it requires quite moderate CPU resources.

    • This, commercial services largely can't afford to baulk China's censorship requests these days, Zoom has even basically admitted that moving E2E encryption capability to paid accounts only was for the purpose of policing content, and this is one form of content policing they must do to maintain access to the Chinese market. Don't like it? Self-host with FLOSS.

      • This, commercial services largely can't afford to baulk China's censorship requests these days, ...

        I think a more accurate statement is "commercial services see the size of the Chinese market and consider the possibility of large future profits from there to be more important than taking a principled stand now".

        Plus, with Zoom, they're relying on cheap Chinese labor for all of their development. If the Chinese government were to intervene, Zoom would be forced to hire much more expensive coders from other countries, like the US.

        • Either way. They'd lose not only the possibility of future profits but also existing Chinese customers (when their service gets blocked by the Great Firewall), and the advantage of access to the Chinese market to any competitors that comply with Chinese censorship requests. Whether they can currently absorb the costs or not, they'd be hamstringing themselves.

    • Ahh yes the good old OpenSource that is "easy".

      I wonder how easy this will be. Last time someone suggested an open source alternative to an off the shelf product with incorporated cloud service it required you to buy a raspberry pi, have a separate PC to flash a memory stick, and get a Cisco certification in networking to punch holes through your NAT.

      *note this isn't a criticism of open source as much as it is a criticism of how complicated we've setup our networks, how damaging NAT is to the concept of end

      • by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @06:24PM (#60169044)
        You obviously never tried using one of the public Jitsi instances. Apart from directing your Web-RTC-capable browser to the URL of the service there is nothing more to it. It's actually simpler than asking people to register with some commercial service, as no registration or such is required.
      • Setting up Jitsi on a server I have control over was really easy--credit to the Jitsi team for making it easy. I spent most of my time changing the branding, which ultimately was handled by using a redirect in the web server (a kludge). About 10 minutes was spent restricting the creation of meetings to moderators.

        Creating the firewall rules in AWS wasn't complicated either.

        I opted to use Jitsi because it was the only solution that I could deploy quickly and meet client IA requirements. I'm not in the IT

  • Unless the contract permits them to terminate the account because they feel like it, in which case you should not have been using it in the first place.

  • The bigger issue is that the CCP still insists - and tries to enforce belief - that the Tiananmen Square massacre never happened, and the protests are all an Evil Capitalist Plot to overthrow Xi and his lian chien xiao wang zi (two thousand little princes). There are literally hundreds of millions of people in China unaware of the events of the massacre, and will grow up in that ignorance.
  • Slashdot hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tolvor ( 579446 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @05:19PM (#60168892)

    Twitter shadowbans conservatives and issues a "warning" label on president Trumps tweets designed to drive people away, and Slashdot cheers. Slashdot comes back with "Twitter is a private company, and can do what they want."

    Zoom blocks Chinese activists and Slashdot gasps in shocked horror. "They are a private company and have a duty to unbiased service."

    If what is done to president Trump and conservatives is fair, then what Zoom is doing is fair and commendable. If not, please explain the difference. If you respond that Trump is dangerous and sometimes untrue, okay fair enough (I don't agree, but I can agree it is debatable). Zoom can say the same about Chinese activists based on complaints by the Chinese government.

    See, I solved that for you.

    • While I haven't heard about the twitter bans, putting fact-checking links or warnings on a tweet isn't the same as suppressing a movement by deleting an account.

      Personally I wish twitter could add their fact-checks to all accounts being used by public figures, but this Trump stuff just feels like they want to annoy him specifically.

    • by nagora ( 177841 )

      If what is done to president Trump and conservatives is fair, then what Zoom is doing is fair

      I agree with your argument that Twitter should ban Trump instead of giving him special treatment by only adding a warning to his bullshit.

  • Zhou Fengsuo is now a US citizen, residing in the United States.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by dwater ( 72834 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @06:51PM (#60169166)

    Some interesting reading here, with references to follow up:

    https://worldaffairs.blog/2019... [worldaffairs.blog]

    • Propaganda Warning
      bullshit do not click

      • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @08:07PM (#60169354)

        What the BBC really says about the Tiananmen Square Massacre
        https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]

        Party officials disagreed on how to respond, some backing concessions, others wanting to take a harder line.

        The hardliners won the debate, and in the last two weeks of May, martial law was declared in Beijing.

        On 3 to 4 June, troops began to move towards Tiananmen Square, opening fire, crushing and arresting protesters to regain control of the area.

        ...

        How many people died in the protests?
        No-one knows for sure how many people were killed.

        At the end of June 1989, the Chinese government said 200 civilians and several dozen security personnel had died.

        Other estimates have ranged from hundreds to many thousands.

        In 2017, newly released UK documents revealed that a diplomatic cable from then British Ambassador to China, Sir Alan Donald, had said that 10,000 had died.

        Do people in China know what happened?
        Discussion of the events that took place in Tiananmen Square is highly sensitive in China.

        Posts relating to the massacres are regularly removed from the internet, tightly controlled by the government.

        So, for a younger generation who didn't live through the protests, there is little awareness about what happened.

      • by dwater ( 72834 )

        Ooh, THAT'S a convincing argument.

  • You knuckleheads don't get it, do ya? If the liberal lamestream media do no control the narrative to only get the points heard that fits their program, versus the rational views, then the sheeple can't be manipulated into Soros' chattel utopia.

    Maybe read up some on Hegel's and then Marx's dialectics: the two "opposing" viewpoints need to be carefully controlled and presented so that the sheeple arrive at the wished-for conclusion (some compromise mid-point between the two extremes) "all on their own". Exce

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

Working...