Zoom Deleted Events Discussing Zoom 'Censorship' (buzzfeednews.com) 113
Zoom shut down a series of events meant to discuss what organizers called "censorship" by the company. From a report: The events were planned for Oct. 23 and were organized in response to a previous cancellation by Zoom of a San Francisco State University talk by Leila Khaled, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terror organization in the US. Khaled is best known for highjacking two planes, one in 1969 and one in 1970. Zoom told the Verge at the time that the Sept. 23 talk was in violation of the company's terms of service. The Verge also reported that the action was in response to pressure by Jewish and Israel lobby groups, such as the Lawfare Project.
Following the Sept. 23 cancellation, a group of academics organized a series of events across the country, as well as in Canada and the UK, which were meant to highlight the issue. "Campuses across North America are joining in the campaign to resist corporate and university silencing of Palestinian narratives and Palestinian voices," said the day of action's event description, which was meant to be held on Oct. 23. The follow-up events did not include Khaled presenting. The event held in part by New York University, which was canceled the day of, included a compilation of her previous statements, according to a blog post on the incident.
Following the Sept. 23 cancellation, a group of academics organized a series of events across the country, as well as in Canada and the UK, which were meant to highlight the issue. "Campuses across North America are joining in the campaign to resist corporate and university silencing of Palestinian narratives and Palestinian voices," said the day of action's event description, which was meant to be held on Oct. 23. The follow-up events did not include Khaled presenting. The event held in part by New York University, which was canceled the day of, included a compilation of her previous statements, according to a blog post on the incident.
Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't rely on for-profit companies to facilitate your speech. They do so at their pleasure and will cut you off in a heartbeat if it's profitable to do so.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
You can replace "for-profit companies" and replace with "academic" for the same results. And yes, universities in the U.S. are "for profit" even though they claim they aren't. Just look at how they squash anything that isn't pro-liberal.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Insightful)
Statistically, less than they squash anything that isn't pro-conservative:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at the political leanings [wikipedia.org] of most university faculties? In recent years, those ratios range from 5:1 up to about 7:1 liberal (or "far left") to conservative, so a ratio of 3:1 in firings suggests there is still anti-conservative bias.
Looking only at the political valence of speech is also inadequate -- were professors fired for mocking the idea of microagressions [www.jamesgmartin.center] or for assaulting a journalist [washingtonpost.com]? There's a rather big legal difference between cases like those.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at the political leanings [wikipedia.org] of most university faculties? In recent years, those ratios range from 5:1 up to about 7:1 liberal (or "far left") to conservative, so a ratio of 3:1 in firings suggests there is still anti-conservative bias.
Middle ground fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The middle ground fallacy claims that the middle ground is correct by virtue of being the middle ground.
In contrast, I pointed out that conservative professors are something like twice as likely to be fired as liberals or far-left professors. That's a direct rebuttal of your misleadingly incomplete statistical claim.
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing that there should be an equal likelihood based on the assumption that both groups are equally likely to commit an offense, that sounds like arguing that the middle ground is correct by virtue of being the middle ground.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's an assumption that there is no relevant a priori difference between those two groups. Do you think there is?
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, but if you assume that the window of acceptable viewpoints is not set by middle ground fallacy, then it can be argued that one group is inherently more likely to offend. As an extreme example, if you have a N**i who says that all Jews should be genocided and a liberal who says no Jews should be genocided, the middle ground position that will result in an equal proportion of firings assuming an equal tendency to offend is that Jews should get Thanos-snapped to half of their current numbers. Obviou
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry that academic freedom [wikipedia.org] is a foreign concept to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are pushing a guy that committed TWO hijackings. If they are not legit terrorist, they're doing a damn good impersonation.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Lots of former terrorists reformed or had their actions retrospectively re-evaluated. Nelson Mandela comes to mind.
I don't know much about this person but even if what they did was that bad if they are free now then maybe they paid their debt.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
You only (maybe) get retrospectively reevaluated if you win and cement your victory. Remember, American independence was fought for by British terrorists taking up arms against the legitimate government. It was only after they won, and established a country capable of standing against "take-backs" that they became freedom fighters.
So long as Israel has powerful friends (that would be us) and some titular claim to exert, they're officially the good guys, and anyone who fights against their policies are terrorists or an insurgency. That says nothing about the legitimacy of any resistance, it's purely a statement of current political status.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except no, that's been shown repeatedly to be complete bullshit.
I know, it hurts when you aren't able to play the poor little victim, but academics don't squash things that aren't "pro-liberal". They actively debate them. And if you get your ass handed to you in a debate (like this!) it isn't your rights being violated, it's you being shown to be wrong, as you are here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Repeat after me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would expand it to be don't rely on anything to facilitate your free speech.
Everyone and Every organization has an agenda. Your speech and ideas may be supportive of the Agenda, Be neutral to it, or they may be opposed to it.
Every organization has what I call "Editorial" rights to what is on their platforms, Including you or I. If someone enters your home, and starts saying things you don't want to hear, you can kick them out, if they refuse you can be very forceful about it.
The United State First Amendm
Re: (Score:2)
That's insanely broad, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
It is compared to other countries, even places in rather open areas like Europe.
However some people are saying first amendment, to justify them for not getting kicked out of stores for not wearing a mask, having their post deleted from a social media site, or not getting their editorial posted in the paper.
Re: (Score:2)
It is compared to other countries, even places in rather open areas like Europe.
You meant narrow, then. At the very least around here we have it as a positive right, as opposed to merely the government not interfering with things. Clearly the latter covers a subset of the former, so the former is either as broad or broader.
Re: (Score:2)
However some people are saying first amendment, to justify them for not getting kicked out of stores for not wearing a mask, having their post deleted from a social media site, or not getting their editorial posted in the paper.
Those 3 are not equivalent. Not wearing a mask during a pandemic is presenting a danger to others. Newspapers not accepting your piece is them exercising editorial rights over their own content. However, social media deleting your post, when their default stance is to allow anyone to post, is in fact censorship, even if it's not the kind that is forbidden by the first amendment.
Normally censorship by private entities doesn't matter because they have competitors. However, when a few of these entities gains m
Re: (Score:2)
However, social media deleting your post, when their default stance is to allow anyone to post,
Which social media platforms have a default stance of allowing anything to be posted? I know the big ones have always had terms of service against some stuff and will delete those posts and ban prolific offenders. A good example is women claiming the equal right to take their shirt off, something that is perfectly legal in free countries.
I see you actually said anyone, are there people getting kicked off while lets say, pleasantly talking about the weather or is it what they post such as the woman posting a
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter for example has repeatedly made public statements about defending "free speech", including one here by the CEO comparing it to a public square (source [wired.com]:
A lot of people come to Twitter and they don’t actually see an app or a service, they see what kind of looks like a public square. And they have the same sort of expectations of a public square. And that is what we have to make sure that we get right. And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square.
Morally speaking, you can't make that kind of statement, then start censoring people whose speech you disagree with, even if that person is Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I see some conflict in that announcement, namely, " And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square." Best thing is to look at their terms of service, which probably has a list of things that aren't welcome on their platform. Guessing, likely sex and violence, much like the real public square, where there are laws from disturbing the peace, through obsenity to vagrancy putting limits on what you can say and do.
Personally I find the idea of a private public square to b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s a bit of a conundrum to figure out how something can be a “right’ if you can be oppressed, by anyone, for exercising it.
For instance, the right to freedom of religion, or the freedom of gay marriage (where applicable). Most states include a legal prohibition from companies abridging that right. If someone fires you for being in a gay marriage, or being Muslim, or whatever, you can sue and will win.
Not so speech. You can be fired, denied entry to places, and can be discriminated agai
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is legal here for someone to refuse to marry a gay couple if it offends their religious views, with the exception of government workers (marriage commissioner), who can be fired. Rights are like that, broad but not unlimited, so just because gays have a right to marriage, they don't have a right to force those unwilling to marry them.
Pretty sure the same sort of things stand for religion. While generally you are free to practice your religion, the neighbourhood Sikh temple can kick out the person l
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking. This terrorist is in the USA, we know who they are and presumably where they were going to be, sounds like we should of had her. Or did she pay her dues to society? If it was murder, then she did not pay her dues.
Re:Should be moot in 2020.... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is Terrorism is loosely defined. They are often classified as a rebellion group, that is rebelling against a government that we are currently trying to get good relations with. Sometimes it gets more complicated, as such Terrorist Groups will target both our friends and enemies. Thus depending on how much relationship with such country is worth siding with or not, becomes the case.
Both sides of a conflict does a lot of bad things. The line between terrorist, militant, rebel, soldier... Is rather thin. How a nation decides to classify a group is often based more off of politics than morals.
During the Revolutionary War of the United States, The Turncoats (aka Patriots, our founding fathers), would do many things to innocent loyalists (Those who wanted to stay in Britten) Including Tarring and Feathering those who don't agree with their cause.
The American Folk Song Yankee Doodle. Was a song sung by British nobility to make fun of the American Dandies (Lower Class people who were wealthy and living ostentatious like nobility). It became a patriotic song, because we would catch such loyalist, and force them to sing the song while we Tar and Feather them causing a slow death.
Re: (Score:2)
During the Revolutionary War of the United States, The Turncoats (aka Patriots, our founding fathers), would do many things to innocent loyalists (Those who wanted to stay in Britten) Including Tarring and Feathering those who don't agree with their cause.
The revolutionary war was fought just as much between citizens as the armies. It's rather disingenuous to say "innocent loyalists" when citizens were fighting each other on both sides.
How many Londoners were killed by George Washington's legions of suicide bombers?
No, 'terrorism' isn't a loosely defined term except by people who want to obfuscate it to excuse its modern practitioners. Terrorism is the practice of striking terror in the civilian population that isn't otherwise combatant.
Re: (Score:2)
One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's Terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's Terrorist.
One man's profound truism is another man's trite banality.
Re: (Score:2)
There were lots of Loyalists who did no more then practice their freedom of speech by saying they'd prefer things staying the same who were tarred and feathered. Being a Conservative at the time was seriously hazardous to your health.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside... where did you get the idea that tarring and feathering someone actually killed them? It was an incredibly unpleasant experience I'm sure, and could cause minor injuries to the skin, but was designed as a humiliation rather than an execution.
Re: (Score:2)
People die when boiling pine pitch is painted on them, especially before antibiotics when an infection was often a death sentence.
There was also Colonel Lynch and his crew who did much more then tar and feathering.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], no one was actually known to have died from being tarred and feathered during the Revolutionary War period.
Additional reading (see item #1):
https://allthingsliberty.com/2... [allthingsliberty.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This distinguishes terrorism from rebellion, as the latter is directed against a government and the former against a people. Some spillover is to be expected, terrorists killing officials or rebels killing civilians, the key is who your primary target is. Thus, it is easy to identify colonial Pat
Re:Should be moot in 2020.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny Americans...
And you wonder why you got so many murderers ...
Sometimes I wonder if you ever even read that bible you cherish so much ..
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes I wonder if you ever even read that bible you cherish so much ..
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the Bible is pretty clear that a person convicted of murder should be executed.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible is also pretty clear about a lot of other reasons to execute someone, such as eating the wrong thing like a shellfish or wearing the wrong clothes such as anything made out of 2 types of clothe. My understanding is Jesus changed those rules, replacing with forgiveness.
Re: Should be moot in 2020.... (Score:2)
Most people haven't read their own religious book.
The Bible can be read many different ways. The most accurate might be that some parts are meant to be historical record, and other parts are meant to tell you what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Prepare to have your mind blown:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Who did she murder? I'm not saying she wasn't involved in a group that has killed, but you seem to have assumed more.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no question that she's probably complicit. The question is - who did she murder? And do you execute people for merely being complicit?
Re: (Score:3)
They put people into prison for life for stealing three snickers bars.
What do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only person killed was her co-hijacker. And he only injured someone. I did look it up - how about you actually check your facts.
Re:Should be moot in 2020.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like Yitzhak Shamir who murdered civilians at the King David Hotel [telegraph.co.uk] then went on to become an Israeli Prime Minister?
It's always amusing when we hear the U.S. won't deal with Palestinian "terrorists" yet has no problem genuflecting to Jewish terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who exactly do you think she murdered? I googled her and couldn't mind any reference to any murders, and in fact plenty of references to her never having physically harmed anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Post 9/11, people seem to have forgotten that airplane hijackings prior to that typically resulted in zero casualties. In fact, when the events of 9/11 first started unfolding, it was assumed that the hijackings were just a political stunt like every hijacking before. It was only after the first two planes hit the towers in New York that everyone realized that the hijackers meant to use the planes as weapons instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly this. Fuck terrorists. They lost their right to free speech when they became terrorists.
And how do you know that they are terrorists?
Palestinian frustration with the US is real and justified. Our media is quite biased - but not in the way conservative persecution delusions would have us believe. Watch and read other media outlets based outside of the USA.
Palestinians are fighting a one sided war and the USA GIVES weapons to their adversary.
Frankly, if God existed He should flood the fucking Middle East all over again.
Re: (Score:3)
If God existed, most Americans would be dead and in hell for wearing clothes of two different threads. Among many other things.
The whole point of the Jesus figure, was to forgive and not be the vile furious monster that he was in the old testament. I guess that's the one that would ultimately get all Americans (and Israeli and Palestinians) in any case. Cause if I have learned one thing from US media and social networks, it's that they *never fucking get* the underlying philosophy for that "turn the othr ch
PROTIP, you degenerate: (Score:1)
A right is ONLY a right, if it applies to EVERYONE.
Otherwise it is not a right.
And YOU sound more like a totitarian murderous dictator than anyone else right now.
So you better apply that logic to yourself right fuckin now.
Do it!
Kudos to Zoom for managing terrorists (Score:3, Informative)
Applause to the managers at Zoom who prevented a terrorist from having a podium
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only they'd cancel white supremacist talks. Maybe judging by this it's on the radar.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, you really beat THAT poster with your logic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps he was referring to the current racism of the progressives that alleges that minorities cannot be punctual or speak properly etc [ssir.org] and that to expect them to is RACIST. Or maybe it was a reference to Democrat-run schools adopting the idea that Math is racist [k12.wa.us]. Sadly, if one did not know better, one might suspect that this drivel attacking math as racist [theprint.in] was from The Onion or from Babylon Bee
Attention Normal Democrats:
You need to get control of your crazies! You've let the leash become so long that you've supported them looting, pillaging, burning, beating, and murdering in your cities, including bailing them out so they can do it all again, so stuff like claiming that getting the right answer to a math question, or showing up on time for work is racist seems like a small thing, but NORMAL PEOPLE ARE NOTICING and getting worried about you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wow, you really beat THAT poster with your log (Score:2)
Harris had to drop out long before the vote. Clearly she is less loved than Biden.
Re: Wow, you really beat THAT poster with your log (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Restraining the EPA from declaring my exhalations as dangerous pollutants?
Well your comments should definitely be classified as that. But I'm not up on the latest insane conspiracy theorie
Re: Wow, you really beat THAT poster with your lo (Score:2)
Re: "cruelty." Sigh. If the objective is to restrict people from coming in who have no right to come in, then you either need physical barriers or procedural barrier, and probably both. The deporter in chief deported with one hand while conjuring up defacto work permits (for which he had no statutory autho
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
If the terrorists don't like Zoom's policies, they should go start their own zoom.
That's what we tell conservatives, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, all streets and places and buildings belong to corporations now. ... and suck. /*ClEaRlY*/ it's Not Censorship(TM), since you can always go "somewhere else" ... There ain't any somewhere else, but nevermind! --.--
They set policies for what to say and do
They declared saying HAIL to them nor sucking their dick TERRORISM.
But
(People actually defend this exact logic on the Internet.)
How is this different than FB / Twitter censorship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There has been an almost complete blackout on CNN/MSNBC/etc
All of these outlets have reported on the fact that NY Post ran with the story. That's as far as they're willing to go based on the facts available. I wouldn't call that a blackout - I would call that good journalism.
Very interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
They used the same standard they used for the "Trump Russia Collusion" stuff then, right?
Ah, no, of course not. They let the anti-Trump stuff run rampant for 4+ years --- so completely that a huge part of the nation believes it to this very day even though the Obama administration's FBI records have been declassified and released and any person can freely read them and see that it was all a lie paid for by the Clinton campaign. There were over 60 Obama admin officials who testified under oath admitting there was never ANY evidence of Trump Russia collusion - yet anybody can freely post/see content on Facebook and Twitter etc alleging Trump Russia Collusion. None of the mainstream media have apologized for their steaming piles of lies or issued corrections. The New York Times has not returned its Pulitzer prize for the story. Somehow these media outlets are not "fact checked" or banned or censored in any way by these sites, even as they have an impact on elections.
Hmmmm
Hunter Hunter Benghazi! (Score:2)
Not this Fox Noise again. The article in question contained personal email addresses and other personal details. One company admitted they should have described the reason for banning better, but we don't have enough evidence to disqualify them from Hanlon's Razor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did they do the same blocking for Trump's tax returns? If not, why?
Re: (Score:2)
Do his tax returns contain email addresses?
[cough] (Score:2)
1. Tax returns are far more private than email addresses.
2. Hunter's laptop and its contents were lawfully obtained, after Hunter abandoned them at a repair shop (covered by a contract he signed)
3. Trump's tax returns were obtained in clear violation of federal laws - a criminal act.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is making these "rules"? Hannity?
Moot to the point. Twitter's anti-doxing rules are not and cannot be realistically based on what laptop the info was on. If you have my email address on your laptop and hand it to Hannity, that doesn't mean Twitter should publish my email address. Think it through.
Whether true
Re: (Score:1)
So the finances of a president corruptly and illegally profiting off the presidency is on the same level as unproven claims relying on dubious evidence that the son of a vice president might have invited someone to meet his dad?
If that's your worldview, god damn.
On one hand we have actual crimes committed by a sitting president, and on the other we have, even if completely substantiated, nothing.
Seriously, how in the world can you compare the two?
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely a tough one.
Most people don't support censorship but most people also want what they read on common social media platforms to be factually true.
Back when news was mainly the domain of large corporate networks, what they published was heavily scrutinized for veracity.
Now anyone with a phone can publish "news" with zero fact checking, accountability or disclaimers.
I guess it's probably better for everyone if the social media companies scrutinize "news" from those with huge numbers of followers
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't mind censorship of stuff which is wrong. What is considered 'wrong' can be anything you object to . Propaganda tells people what is wrong and right. That means that the people in control of the propaganda get to control what is allowed to be said.
This has accelerated immensely in the last four years.
Social media companies don't give a fuck about what is true. At least not enough to take it in account. They do give a fuck about power. So if this Leila Khaled wants to reach people and others
Re: (Score:2)
Is the NY Post actually a news paper?
I was under the impression that for the longest times (as in hundreds of years) the NY Post was not actually reporting news but was mostly a tabloid and slandering platform for the owners of the NY Post only interested in facts that will cause shock and slander or can be bent to cause shock and slander. (Which if I understood correctly started with A. Hamilton at the end of the 18th century.)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the NY Post actually a news paper?
I was under the impression that for the longest times (as in hundreds of years) the NY Post was not actually reporting news but was mostly a tabloid and slandering platform for the owners of the NY Post only interested in facts that will cause shock and slander or can be bent to cause shock and slander. (Which if I understood correctly started with A. Hamilton at the end of the 18th century.)
If I own the vast majority of the means and wherewithal to disseminate information, I get to control what information gets disseminated. And If I want to label any other organization that disagrees with my agenda as a tabloid, how long would it take for the majority of the consumers of my information to reach the conclusion that the other organization is a tabloid?
A significant portion of book burnings in the past were promoted if not started by the majority that was in control of getting information out to
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is the Post a straight up tabloid, in this case their editors refused to put their names on the byline. That should tell you something about how reliable a story it is.
Re: How is this different than FB / Twitter censor (Score:2)
Just because a story excites you sexually doesn't make it news. There's no blackout because there's no story to tell.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly bullshit? WTF?
They have multiple credible witnesses that were in on the conversation who have come forward with their end of the email chains.
They have Hunter Biden's signature on the receipt.
They have videos of him walking naked around what appears to be underage girls.
There is all of the documented evidence that puts Hunter and Joe at the scenes of the transgressions that are being claimed.
The is the circumstantial evidence of a man that earned less that $150k/yr on average owning multiple mansio
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think anything should be fair game on the internet if it isn't explicitly illegal. Adults can make up their own minds and parents should actually try parenting instead of blaming the world on their kids finding shit they shouldn't.
Fortunately this issue is cut and dry.
Per 18 U.S.C. 2339A(b)(1) providing services and communications equipment to foreign terrorist organizations is illegal.
Nothing the New York Post did was illegal.
So I don't see where the issue is.
The public sphere can't exist on platforms (Score:1)
As our society becomes increasingly more digitized, it's clear that the only place the public sphere can exist digitally is in protocols.
Platforms are private businesses that have their own whims and must kowtow to governments.
Maybe now some support for a FOSS alternative? (Score:2)
Corporate censorship of the various social media is enabled by effective monopolies on each. Those arise from the population gravitating to a single supplier of a type of service - in this case, internet video conferencing.
The censorshp has the potential to drive enough users to another platform to form a critical mass, spurring its adoption, initially among an interest group, its further development and improvement as its user base and resulting support expands, then perhaps spreading to other interest gr
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you never even heard of Jitsi...! (Score:3)
Jitsi did 128-people video conferences with decentralized ZRTP encryption, firewall tunnellig, tons of config options, OTP-supporting chat, desktop sharing, and provisioning, ten freaking years ago!
Jitsi Meet [jitsi.meet], the web service equivalent, is one freaking search away! Costs nothing, works better than Zoom, has always focused on privacy. (Actually competent developers.)
It's even installable on your own box. Open source! So you can totally use it to launch a Zoom clone this week!
What planet are you living on? F
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the livestock choose zoom? (Score:2)
(OK, ... what did the choosing of the livestock? Don't wanna offend them by implying independent thought and personal responsibility. Was bitten by that before.)
Other than circular reasoning ("People use it because people use it.")...
Was it advertised or something?
It can't be features or safety or trustworthiness.
Re: (Score:1)
So even... (Score:3)
...with an amended Section 230 such as those being proposed that would drastically change how sites can censor content I still think this would be taken down. We are talking about a group that is classified as a foreign terrorist organization and the person giving the talk is a known terrorist. Last time I checked it was illegal in the US for terrorist organizations to hold public assembly.
Per 18 U.S.C. 2339A(b)(1) it is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Material support includes ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”
There are a few things listed in there that this would fall under including services and communications equipment.
So if Zoom had not taken it down on their own then the FBI could have made them do it and then Zoom would have had to deal with embarrassing headlines for supporting terrorist organizations. As if they needed any more bad press.
Relevant video. (Score:2)
"I am Jewish and I support Palestinian human rights!" [youtube.com]
You know what? (Score:2)
Anyone stupid enough to use Zoom kind of deserves this. There's plenty of alternatives, literally (and literally literally, not figuratively literally) all of which are superior to Zoom in every aspect. It is beyond well documented just how bad Zoom is; at this point it's willful ignorance to be unaware of the plethora of issues around this company and it's conferencing products.
Are they finally encrypting audio and video transport or can every Tom, Dick, and Harry still spy on your Zoom call using the mos