
Zoom Acknowledges It Suspended Activists' Accounts at China's Request - dehrmann
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876351501/zoom-acknowledges-it-suspended-activists-accounts-at-china-s-request
======
fossuser
“The reality is Zoom operates in more than 80 countries and continues to
expand, which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to
promote the open exchange of ideas.“

This kind of rationalization isn’t just a problem with Zoom, Apple does the
same thing - blocking podcasts and other apps in the Chinese market (also the
Taiwan flag emoji).

This is wrong.

What’s legal and what’s right are not the same thing, Zoom’s PR about the
promotion of an “open exchange of ideas” is nonsense and both Zoom and the CCP
know it.

Companies that work to suppress the rights of citizens are complicit in that
suppression and its legality is irrelevant.

When Zoom is requested to send over names and videos of political dissidents
to authoritarian leaders will they comply?

I’m sure those killed will be pleased to know Zoom was operating within the
legal framework of their country.

Legality should be the bare minimum standard - and in countries with bad laws
(Middle East, China) it shouldn’t even be that.

~~~
monocasa
Also, as absolutely reprehensible Apple's similar actions are, Zoom canceled
_a US based account_ because of a Chinese request. It's one thing to be all
"we comply with local laws", and another to enforce one country's geopolitical
aspirations across international borders.

Like, I think companies should take a stand and both aren't acceptable, but
Zoom takes new, additional steps here.

~~~
HALtheWise
Most US companies that I am familiar with apply US laws to all their users, at
least to some extent. For example, I don't think that YouTube will allow you
to post a blatantly copyright-infringing video, even if your account declares
a country that doesn't enforce US copyright laws. Similarly, I suspect that
Facebook would take down a page for a terrorist group, without needing
permission from the country they are based in. I'm curious if you know of
counterexamples.

I'm not necessarily saying that US and Chinese laws are equivalent in this
sense, but it does seem like something of a double standard.

~~~
modeless
US companies may enforce US law but they're not hiding the fact that they're
US companies. Zoom claimed not to be a Chinese company while enforcing Chinese
law for US users.

~~~
fossuser
Yeah, but this is the mistake they’re acknowledging with a promise to build
out the system to only suppress the mainland China citizens specifically.

My point is that this is not acceptable either.

~~~
alasdair_
>Yeah, but this is the mistake they’re acknowledging

Out of interest, did they fix their "mistake" and reinstate the accounts?

~~~
thedudeabides5
Great question. Will show where they land.

Still waiting to see if China will show NBA games while Daryl Morey remains
unfired.

[https://qz.com/1730643/china-asked-nba-to-fire-daryl-
morey-f...](https://qz.com/1730643/china-asked-nba-to-fire-daryl-morey-for-
hong-kong-tweet/)

How long is the west going to pretend it doesn’t see where this pattern of
bullying ends...

------
amrrs
> The company said it would no longer block accounts outside of mainland China
> at Beijing's request, but did not say outright how it would handle such
> requests that affect users within mainland China. Instead, Zoom said, it
> would develop technology to block users based on geography.

Funny how these kind of statements are thrown around wherever something is
blown up about Zoom. I'm one of those who had goodwill on Zoom but looking at
the amount of issues popped up recently and their "Yeah this was intentional
but I'm sorry next it it won't happen' response Pattern indicates that the
company is aimed at only one thing - Growth at any cost

~~~
ciarannolan
It's the Facebook playbook of doing something illegal/immoral, getting caught,
saying 'gee sorry, that was an accident', then doing it all over again.

~~~
ct520
LOL for real. I will cry no tears for FB when they get what’s coming to them.
Will be the MySpace of my kids time.(if it’s not already is)

~~~
lotsofpulp
FB has had solid revenue and net income for many years, so much that it’s one
of the most valuable companies in the world. It’s not comparable to MySpace,
and definitely isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

~~~
DeusExMachina
While Facebook and MySpace are different in many ways, the average lifespan of
a S&P 500 company is below 20 years.

Facebook could very well be an outlier. If it isn't, it could definitely go
away in the coming years.

In any case, that shows that its revenue/income is not a predictor of
anything. When a company spirals down, it does so at an accelerating rate and
can quickly burn through any amount of cash.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Facebook is very far from an average SP500 company, as are the rest of the big
tech companies. They drive the market indices with how much investors think
they are worth and will be worth. And they have levels of cash that tech (or
any) companies in decades past could only dream of.

~~~
totalZero
I'm sure the executives of Enron and Kodak felt similarly. However, no level
of corporate success is granted indefinitely.

------
xster
I mean our Twitter and Facebook have been shutting down accounts from elected
offices of NATO "targets" like Venezuela and Iran for a while now
[https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/12/us-pressure-social-
media-...](https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/12/us-pressure-social-media-
censoring-suspending-venezuela-iran-syria). I don't see people up in arms
saying "legality is irrelevant".

~~~
remus
Similarly, I don't think we can really hold the US up as some sort of bastion
of moral excellence. As a non US citizen you have very little right to privacy
and the US government will use this against you (see: forcibly having to
unlock your devices so border agents can search them).

On balance I think the US is a lot better than China, but there's a lot of
room for improvement.

~~~
echlebek
Luckily, you don't have to hold up the US as a bastion to criticize China.
They can both be criticized independently.

~~~
tatersolid
> They can both be criticized independently.

But not inside China. And therein lies the great difference.

------
throwaway0613
Bear in mind that Zoom is a Chinese company — the founding team is Chinese;
the core engineering and ops teams are largely in Suzhou and Hangzhou.

So, while they are incorporated in the US and have significant presence in
their HQ, their ties to China are stronger than the more-commonly-discussed
outsourced-engineering sort of relationship.

~~~
crazygringo
When will this meme die?

Zoom is NOT a Chinese company. It is incorporated in and headquartered in the
US. Like any American company ever, it follows US laws in the US, and local
laws in other companies where it operates. End of story.

Yes their culture certainly has stronger _cultural_ internal ties to China,
due to the number of Chinese employees, but what has that got to do with
anything? At the end of the day, they're a _public, profit-driven corporation
trying to make lots of money across the entire world_.

It's not like they're secretly and nefariously doing the CCP's bidding, which
seems to be the veiled suggestion people keep making.

Seriously, every time someone brings up that Zoom is "really" a Chinese
company, it comes across as borderline racism or conspiracy-mongering or both.
And while I'd usually never comment on someone using a throwaway account, in
this case when you're pushing these kinds of shady "stronger than the more-
commonly-discussed" insituations, I think using a throwaway here is
representative of exactly the kind of astroturfing that spreads malicious
rumors without evidence.

~~~
augustt
When will the meme that hating an organ harvesting totalitarian government ==
racism die?

~~~
crazygringo
So explain to me -- since Zoom is _not_ a Chinese company, then what's the
purpose of falsely claiming that it is?

If it isn't meant to tap into some kind of prejudice against Chinese people,
then what is the purpose of spreading false rumors like that?

You can of course be against the Chinese government. But when you start
fearmongering that a _public American company_ is "actually Chinese", "more
than commonly discussed"... based on zero evidence except that the company has
a lot of Chinese people... then if it's not meant to trigger veiled racism,
_what is it meant to trigger otherwise?_

Since, again, Zoom _is not part of and has nothing to do with the Chinese
government_ , except for when it obeys the government in its operations within
China, like every other American company has to do too.

~~~
Medicalidiot
>Zoom's product development team is largely based in China

The main players are under CCP command.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications#Work...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications#Workforce)

~~~
crazygringo
A company's "main players" are its board and senior management. "Under
command" means they report to someone.

Can you please explain how you think the board members and management of Zoom
-- an American publicly traded company -- report to the CCP?

Because that is certainly _not_ what your Wikipedia link says.

~~~
Medicalidiot
>A company's "main players" are its board and senior management

Ah I see that we have different definitions of main players. I'm thinking of
developers who are able to mess with the code. But the Wikipedia does support
what my definition of main players means.

Just because the board doesn't report to CCP doesn't mean that someone
significant in the 700 isn't an assent of the CCP and able to do significant
damage.

------
zamalek
> which requires compliance with local laws even as Zoom seeks to promote the
> open exchange of ideas.

That's as good as saying "we will kill puppies if local laws require it as
Zoom seeks to promote fair treatment of animals." They aren't promoting "open
exchange of ideas" and likely never will. Zoom have continuously proven to be
profit driven. _This is perfectly fine,_ so long as they don't lie about it
(they lie like they breath).

Furthermore, if you are an activist and are using Zoom, you have none of my
pity. They have proven their beliefs at every possible opportunity, and then
some, for months. You really have to start questioning your belief patterns
and critical thinking if you are sharing anything remotely confidential or
private on Zoom. Using Zoom for basically anything is the equivalent of "not
being able to program the video tape recorder." It's not applying enough
thought to the trivial problem at hand, and subjecting yourself to turmoil due
to that.

We don't need legal structures for this. Just stop using stupid products, Zoom
being one of the best examples.

------
astatine
These skirmishes (Zoom now, TikTok earlier and the ongoing Huawei one) make
for interesting shows, for those outside China and the US. China uses
nationalism as the excuse for censorship. As long as you don't criticize China
you are free to do anything you want. The US uses morality as the excuse for
censorship. As long as you don't do anything that violates that particular
notion of morality (the American way of life?), you are free to do anything
you want. Wonder which will be easier for the 80% of people outside these 2
countries.

~~~
chii
The american way of life is easier. Because it's demonstrably better so far.

~~~
hrktb
Feels like the current events aren’t really going in that direction.

And it’s sad because we’d really need to have decent govs and leadership where
the power concentrated.

------
dehrmann
If I were a company using Zoom, I'd be a little worried. Zoom already proved
security isn't part of it's culture; now, likely because of it's dev office in
China, it's doing at least some of what China asks. I'm suspicious of their
end-to-end encryption claims (and implementation), and it's in the realm of
possibility that the Chinese government is spying on Zoom calls.

------
joyfulmantis
Following the local laws of countries where a company operates in is a
fundamental condition necessary for globalization. The idea that the americans
know best and don't need to follow local laws is really just another form of
imperialism.

~~~
rayiner
It depends on the law. At a certain point local laws transgress international
norms and it’s justified for countries and companies that have the power to
get away with it to flout them: [https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-
xpm-2013-12-15-ct...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-
xpm-2013-12-15-ct-biz-1215-outside-opinion-20131215-story.html). More broadly,
it’s akin to how courts in the US will generally enforce judgments of foreign
courts, but not if those judgments are based on laws that deviate too far what
US courts consider to be the basic norms.

> Many companies adopted the Sullivan Principles, prepared by the Rev. Leon
> Sullivan, a board member of General Motors. The Sullivan Principles asked
> its signatories to treat all workers equally, in effect calling on U.S.
> corporations to violate South African law, but only a few acted.

> IBM became the first company in South Africa to appoint a black as a
> supervisor of white employees. On the other hand, IBM's largest client was
> the South African government, and its computers were used primarily by the
> military.

~~~
joyfulmantis
Free speech is a concept even the west is struggling with -- Twitter hiding
Donald Trump's tweets for example, or New Zealand banning the terrorists
manifesto. If even the bastion of free speech is starting to have second
doubts about it, how can you claim the moral high ground when a third country
wants to restrict free speech?

~~~
6AA4FD
If you have a problem with twitter hiding trump's tweets and new zealand
banning the christchurch shooter's manifesto, there's no inconsistency.
There's also room for applying your own standard of free speech vs hate speed
across international borders: I might say that the protestors in china were
exercising free speech for political change, while trump's speech has no
important theoretical or political content and is purely harassment. I might
have to massage it to get to something fully agreeable, but I don't think this
kind of position is necessarily inconsistent.

~~~
totony
I think the parent is right in that free speech is not an absolute and has
geographical restrictions. Most western nations restrict free speech mostly by
broadly defining some forms of speech as hate. Saying hate speech laws and
free speech are consistent with each other is disingenuous considering one
exists to limit the other.

I can understand the argument that hate speech is a _fair_ restriction, but
one must concede that it is a _restriction_ and other countries may add their
own restrictions to it which you may disagree on.

~~~
6AA4FD
I should clarify: most americans think everyone is entitled to some right
called "free speech" but there are philosophical justifications of this that
cut across the boundary between ideas and acts (kind of hard to summarize it)
that exclude a lot of speech acts from "free speech" [0]. I was trying to say
that it's not inconsistent to apply a single framework for free speech across
national borders or despite companies like twitter blocking trump's tweets
because there are theories of speech rights that work that way.

[0]: There is an interesting paper on this called 'A Theory of Freedom of
Expression' by Thomas Scanlon that can do a better job of explaining it.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971?seq=1](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971?seq=1)

------
baybal2
The thing is, this is the model how many US dotcoms wanted to operate in
China, where Chinese legal requests would have no impact outside of China.

And another thing is that it has totally set off Chinese government. On one
side, they are very unhappy that this completely works around the very much
intended action to shut up their opposition's voice abroad, but on other side
this precludes further action China can do while still formally claiming it
follows legal process, and not claiming extraterritorial jurisdiction
explicitly.

This is why they pushed out such de-jure compliant, but not de-facto
incompliant Western companies with equally silly, passive aggressive tactics,
like closing companies offices for months on end under pretext of fire safety
violations.

------
NotSammyHagar
Human rights are more important than corporate rights. But where does that
leave us in the situation, whereas others have said Apple cuts off apps like
the one in Hong Kong, and they use the excuse of local laws. Apple and zoom
both need to stop enforcing Chinese law, or stop seeing the benefits of being
an American company. The ability to complain about your government, to point
out injustice, it's a human right, not an American right. I'm safe and sound
in the US so I'm not subject to this. But the people of the world should not
have their right to public expression taken away by profit driven American
companies.

~~~
jatone
america should be cutting ties with china and encouraging our allies to do the
same. enough of this shit. china is a bad actor and should be treated as such
on the world stage (same with russia).

there is 0 reason to do business with china beyond cheap labor and there are
other options for labor.

~~~
zo1
The big downside to going too-far down that road too-quickly is that it might
put China in a corner financially. I don't think anyone wants it to get to
that point because isolating them quickly will definitely escalate tensions
and maybe even war.

Rather: Determined and solid pressure should be put on any expansionist and
growth policies that China may have. Reduce and starve them of critical
imports, slowly make their businesses un-competitive with tariffs and
increasing regulatory requirements for companies that want to do business with
China.

Of course, the response to those sorts of suggestions is that they'll buy ill-
will from the Chinese people and grown division even further. Agreed, but at
this point, that's guaranteed and no matter what we do it'll grow. E.g. Leave
it alone and China's authoritarian and technocratic social policies _will_
increase Chinese peoples' division from the West if not downright hatred. But
if you intervene, then you're being unfair to the Chinese people that want
access to the West in various forms.

What is constant is that China is big threat to global stability and we should
be reducing their power so that the eventual conflict is lessened. I don't
think we can hope for a "the Chinese people love the world and want peace
enough to go against their government" scenario. We're way passed that I would
argue. I'm sure a lot if not almost all of the German people wanted peace and
weren't anti-semitic, but that didn't stop an authoritarian government from
steam-rolling their dissent and turning it into blind compliance. And that was
without any large-scale technocratic indoctrination and control mechanisms,
just plain propaganda.

~~~
totalZero
The whole point of an attack is that it hurts the other guy. If you're afraid
to hurt China's economy, or worse if you fear that China will counterattack,
then you have already lost.

The trade relationship between China and the USA is not a symmetrical one. The
USA is the customer; it should take its business elsewhere.

Apple spent $100B on stock buybacks last year, and has allocated another $50B
for this year. How many factories could Apple have established in Ecuador,
Panama, or Mexico with $150B?

Big players like Apple are the ones who must move first, because a
manufacturing ecosystem (ie, an urban area like a mini-Shenzhen with access to
parts, skilled labor, shipping, worker housing, and prototyping tools) will
spring up wherever they go. They are the only ones who have the level of scale
and importance to be able to establish a beachhead in a new region. Their
ability to bring revenue and jobs gives them power to negotiate favorable
terms with governments of small countries.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
China has a very sophisticated manufacturing industry there, no doubt the best
in the world. It will take a long time to build up the infrastructure of
multiple manufacturing engineers in other places, just like the bay area and
other places like Seattle have a lot of 'intellectual infrastructure' that
companies can hire from. Apple could do this kind of stuff in the US, but it
would cost more, at least in the next few years, to establish those kinds of
capabilities in the US.

------
yingw787
I'm not sure I agree with Zoom's strategy here. Adtech can get away with
compromising user's privacy because users aren't customers, they're eyeballs
for advertisers. Zoom by contrast does primarily B2B sales, and calls _do_
need to have some semblance of privacy. If a Western-based multinational
corporation competes with a China-based company, Zoom suddenly looks a lot
scarier.

People sometimes say nothing came of the Snowden revelations. I think they're
wrong. When the NSA mentioned connections between datacenters were tapped, I
believe FAANG immediately end-to-end encrypted links between datacenters,
because otherwise your business secrets depend on how cozy you are with the
government.

I'd even say it may have played a role in Google Fiber. I don't know about
Google laying its own fiber because it wants to be nice or because it wants to
roll in the mud with Comcast. But if Google was suspicious that ISPs could get
Google data by tapping end users, then it makes sense to keep up the pressure,
and less sense after getting everybody to use HTTPS. Timing seems to work out.

Might be a load of conspiracy hogwash, but it fits the laws of power.

~~~
KerrickStaley
> When the NSA mentioned connections between datacenters were tapped, I
> believe FAANG immediately end-to-end encrypted links between datacenters...

This is correct, at least for Google. I worked at Google when the Snowden
leaks happened and there was an immediate company-wide push to encrypt all
server-to-server traffic.

~~~
koheripbal
... but wouldn't all DC to DC traffic be over an encrypted site-to-site VPN
anyway?

~~~
ciguy
Google and Amazon have their own dedicated fiber between DC sites, but there
was evidence that the NSA was still tapping it at some points. So they added
encryption between the sites as an extra safeguard.

~~~
anewdirection
Not quite, they allowed NSA explicitly, and now they have their own decryption
keys. Whereever did you get the idea google hid data from the nsa?

~~~
ciguy
From people I know working Data Center Ops at Google. They were super pissed
about the NSA tapping at the time and steps were definitely taken to further
encrypt their data in transit.

Of course executives at Google may have handed over a set of keys to the NSA
after this was done. If I had to bet I would say that the NSA has more than
one way to get whatever data they want from any of the top tech companies.
Either via stealing, insiders or coercion they have many options.

------
montroser
Some quality "indie" zoom alternatives:

[https://whereby.com](https://whereby.com)

[https://team.video](https://team.video)

------
notsag-hn
I struggle to understand how people work hard to build they dream technology,
they are also lucky enough for it to take off like zoom in this case, and then
they go ahead to do nasty stuff and to fuck up their users! I hope one day
we'll really condemn and stop using apps/social media for things like this.

~~~
chii
if you switched 'Zoom' with 'Google' in the above, would you have made a
different argument?

~~~
notsag-hn
I would put Google there for sure! Google is nasty at other scales anyways. As
search engine I use Duckduckgo, but sometimes we don't have much of an option
with Google, do we? Mainly on mobile, which the option is Apple, not great.

------
gorgoiler
Piffle! At least they only had to suspend an account!

Imagine the outrage if Zoom had been complicit in adding backdoors, or
conducting surveillance at the implicit or explicit demands of the state.

(I think Snowden even once claimed Apple’s iOS has an NSA backdoor?)

~~~
ridewinter
Who here doesn't think that China has similar things and much much worse added
to Tiktok, Zoom, etc?

------
kenneth
Perhaps the US needs a law that states that a company cannot discriminate
against users based in the US at the request of foreign governments or to
abide by foreign laws.

------
dsalzman
Vote with your wallet.

------
ngcc_hk
2 problems. let us agree china law has issue, can zoom block any account
traffic to china. But you note google and Apple has no such issue.

More problematic and deeper issue is how the overall game work for chinese
market access and free world market access. As only China sanctioned account
can communicate with china but you can use the channel for most, it has an
advantage move others have. The market access to billion. As there is no
equivalent they will take over a significant percentage of the market with
sanction and freedom of speech as a cost. If it connects with india ...

Have to stop that kind of WHO and world trade chinese model, otherwise the
free world would be in trouble.

------
eblanshey
This demonstrates the issue with an internet designed for centralized
services. Zoom is in the position of A) bending to china and not losing their
business, or B) ignoring China's request and lose all of China's business.

With a properly-designed decentralized internet, this decision wouldn't even
exist. Data and services wouldn't be centralized to a company's servers, and
there wouldn't be a way to take down anyone's service. I really wish projects
like MaidSafe and other similar ones would take off, but it's a difficult
problem to tackle.

------
IgorPartola
Remember when Zoom bought Keybase last month and some of us were raising
concerns that Zoom is beholden to the CCP and most of the HN discussion thread
was defending the company saying how just because they employ a lot of people
in China doesn’t mean they will do anything like this? Pepperidge Farm
remembers.

------
paulcarroty
I'm not surprised. Zoom isn't the one and only service used by China to censor
free speech globally:

* [https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfg1ce/list_of_co...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfg1ce/list_of_companies_under_chinas_censorship_orders/)

* [https://time.com/5557951/china-interference-global-media/](https://time.com/5557951/china-interference-global-media/)

So if you're an activist and still use Reddit, Discord or services from the
list above - prepare to be banned. Also check twice any China-affiliated
service/products before using.

------
ngcc_hk
Chinese firm can go into USA, build a firm and control USA media but not USA
firm. It is asymmetrical warfare.

War? USA firm are not party and national related. Chinese firm all are.

USA is naive for a long time to look the other way and that china will change
to better. So what I treat you fairly but not the other way round meant ok.

Good luck but luck is running out. They do not need to be successful, but once
like editing gene of baby. You lost.

If they fail to control their virus handling from low tech like bat eating to
virus testing in their 44 p3 lab and the p4 Wuhan one. Just once. Or maybe
twice. Humanity lost.

Or done with.

To be fair if all are equal. But if china is more equal than USA in market
access. Good luck again

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
It is troubling, but, as others have mentioned, Zoom is not alone here.

What I do not really get is why? Is the Chinese market really that important
to Zoom ( especially given nascent anti Chinese sentiment in US )?

~~~
jcytong
China's the second largest economy and growing which will make them the
largest in the foreseeable future.

Wall street is pretty indifferent when it comes to people being locked
up/killed in a foreign country (heck probably in their own country).

Where as Zoom CEO, your stock price determines your bonus, your continued
employment, but probably most importantly your employees employment and well
being. Given a lot of Zoom staff are in China, there is a non-zero risk of
their well being at play.

Obviously, they care about their public image too in the US. But China's
market is very enticing. :(

------
boraoztunc
Siding with governments, instead of people is wrong. Not a surprise though,
Zoom can do anything for money and its position. It is my wrong though, to
wait for some kind of soul from corporates.

------
HashThis
Zoom sells out citizens to China. US Congress would protect US citizens
affected, except US Congress sells out to corporations (zoom).

US Congress -> Sells out -> Zoom -> Sells out -> China

------
est
From earlier news:

[https://www.axios.com/zoom-closes-chinese-user-account-
tiana...](https://www.axios.com/zoom-closes-chinese-user-account-tiananmen-
square-f218fed1-69af-4bdd-aac4-7eaf67f34084.html)

> 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."

------
cammil
Its easy to blame zoom and Apple and other companies, but if our own elected
governments can't stand up to oppressive regimes, why should we expect a
private company to?

------
natestemen
I know this website has a penchant for anti-China everything, but it's funny
because every terms of service I've ever read has something in it about
complying with law enforcement about giving up data and terminating service.
If you're against zoom doing this, I would expect you to be against every
other company having this clause in their TOS.

------
runawaybottle
Does anyone know if Zoom is built on any open source video streaming tech?

I’m have a hard time believing their product isn’t going to meet massive
amounts of competition very soon.

Edit: After some Googling - [https://webrtchacks.com/zoom-avoids-using-
webrtc/](https://webrtchacks.com/zoom-avoids-using-webrtc/)

~~~
dehrmann
> I’m have a hard time believing their product isn’t going to meet massive
> amounts of competition very soon.

There have been several vendors doing this for years. Google Hangouts, Skype,
BlueJeans, Webex. Zoom just did it better. Except for security; Zoom doesn't
understand security.

~~~
ridewinter
Paul Graham tweeted the other day about the opportunity to supplant Zoom with
something better.

Zoom doesn't seem to have much of a moat, right? Most users aren't even logged
in.

~~~
dehrmann
Its only moat is a better experience than competitors. This shouldn't be much
of a moat, but having used competitors' products, it somehow is.

------
joyfulmantis
the offical blog post is at:
[https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/06/11/improving-our-
poli...](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/06/11/improving-our-policies-as-
we-continue-to-enable-global-collaboration/)

Was it wrong to suspend accounts outside of mainland china? Ultimately yes,
but as they stress these were accounts that were holding meetings with mostly
mainland chinese participants in it.

Any company operating globally needs to follow all the local laws where they
operate in. Zoom's decision to develop technology to ban participants from
specific countries joining meetings seems to be a good solution to this
problem.

------
dirtyid
Pretty much what I speculated [1]. Chinese companies / companies with large
Chinese footprints are going global, many are exploring ways to disassociate
from Chinese influence as controversies crop up. It's an uphill battle, at
least for some western markets. US will object the loudest and has the
domestic alternatives to shift the balance.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23484028](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23484028)

Speculation: Chinese zoom users were required to switch to Chinese version of
Zoom last September. There were probably mainland users using international
version + VPN to participate in the event, probably some sort of local
regulation that prevents users in CN from interacting with international
meets, especially on no-no subjects. From 2nd link below:

>>Intensifying international tensions and the country’s upcoming 70th
anniversary are cited as reasons for the block, according to Chinese media.

Some old articles:

Zoom suspends Chinese individuals users from hosting meetings due to
‘regulatory demand’ [https://technode.com/2020/05/15/zoom-suspends-chinese-
indivi...](https://technode.com/2020/05/15/zoom-suspends-chinese-individuals-
users-from-hosting-meetings-due-to-regulatory-demand/)

China’s Zoom users switch to local version after blockage
[https://technode.com/2019/09/19/chinas-zoom-users-switch-
to-...](https://technode.com/2019/09/19/chinas-zoom-users-switch-to-local-
version-after-blockage/)

China blocks US video-conferencing tool Zoom
[https://technode.com/2019/09/09/china-blocks-us-video-
confer...](https://technode.com/2019/09/09/china-blocks-us-video-conferencing-
tool-zoom/)

------
remotists
I stopped using Zoom right after the privacy and the Facebook data sharing
issues propped up. Using Skype and Google Meets at the moment, hopefully these
guys don't violate my privacy.

------
villgax
So we killed America's Skype & got China's variant.

------
beefman
Is this supposed to be worse than Congress telling Facebook to delete
thousands of accounts a quarter that belong to Eastern Europeans who have
posted about US politics?

------
refurb
What I'm shocked about is that a group of senior leader at Zoom thought this
was a good decision.

Maybe they thought they could get away with it and things would blow over?

~~~
BadassFractal
Or they knew this would blow up on Twitter, but that they would get in trouble
in China for refusing the government request of their own volition.

So they did what the govt wanted, waited for the uproar, and now they can CYA
by blaming the Western mob on the forced change of heart. Zoom ends up doing
the right thing, and the execs don't end up in a gulag somewhere.

------
lmz
I don't see why this is such a big deal. Company with operations in China gets
order from Chinese government to suspend accounts of people the Chinese
government don't like. Company with operations in the US gets order not to
trade with people from US embargoed countries [1]. What's the difference?

[1]: e.g. [https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/07/19/gcp-move-
update/](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/07/19/gcp-move-update/)

~~~
summerlight
This case can be framed more like "an american company suspended an american
account of an american citizen to comply with Chinese local law." Operating in
China doesn't necessarily expand its jurisdiction into the US. What Zoom
should have done is blocking participants in China from the meeting created by
Zhou and Wang rather than suspending a US citizen's account.

For the case of Gitlab, Google and Gitlab are both US based companies so it
makes sense to comply with the US law.

~~~
lmz
Do they not have a local Chinese subsidiary that hires their employees there?

~~~
summerlight
Almost every multinational companies have some level of presence in China,
even Google has offices there. If we apply your logic, China should be allowed
to order search and seizure warrants to those companies for any user
information that might related to their national security. Of course, this is
absolutely non-sense.

~~~
lmz
Well isn't it just a matter of what penalties China can enforce on the
presence there if they refuse to comply? If the majority of their tech team is
there it gets hard to argue that they have no access. Maybe they just
threatened someone with the access and with not enough time to speak to legal?

~~~
summerlight
I already told you how to appropriately handle the situation without provoking
PRC that much, which is supposed to be just a common sense to multi-national
companies. And even PRC probably doesn't want it to get this level of Western
media attentions given the political landscape. Even a mere software engineer
myself know this; but Zoom just simply messed it up by deciding not to do so.

------
malka
Zoom is a blatant CCP trojan horse. It is very clear where Eric Yuan's loyalty
is. And it is not toward the USA.

------
m3kw9
With China requests it’s a landline for all US based tech companies that needs
to operate in China.

------
dreamcompiler
Zoom is not a Chinese company in the same way that Huawei is not an arm of
Chinese intelligence.

------
newbie578
I am amazed yet again how willing are people here to defend Zoom and China,
even daring to compare USA to China lol. While the U.S. might not be perfect
and it does have its share of problems, it cannot compare to a fraction of
China's problems.

Zoom is China's shill, while representing itself as a U.S. company, which
should be publicly condemned.

------
a13n
This seems like capitalism at work.

\- Zoom wants to build as big of a business as possible.

\- Therefore, Zoom wants to retain access to the Chinese market.

\- Therefore, Zoom must work with the Chinese government, to avoid getting
banned.

Is this "legal"? Probably, yes.

Is this "required by law"? Probably not, no.

Is this "right"? Depends who you ask, but probably not.

I feel like this summarizes one of the core issues with capitalism. Companies
make immoral decisions because they can and it makes them more money.

------
giantDinosaur
I'm surprised they don't implement particular forms of shadow banning, such as
degrading connections and causing dropouts for particular accounts. That'd be
much harder to prove than account termination. Frustrate instead of infuriate,
like aspects of the GFW.

~~~
duxup
I feel like they would get caught and China doesn't want "just bother these
people"....

~~~
giantDinosaur
Yes, it's probably unworkable in terms of getting away with it.

------
dcanelhas
If the tool isn't free, why would one expect freedom using it?

------
MintelIE
Most Universities and companies really don’t care, it seems. Zoom is one of
the many shady Chinese companies (yes I am aware of Zoom’s recent change in
status here) who we just do business with no matter _HOW_ harmful it could
potentially be. Recently there was concern about how certain anti-cheat
software included with Chinese games is an effective root kit as well. And
several large American firms have been help China build out their surveillance
infrastructure which is used to send people to death camps.

~~~
dehrmann
Universities, I get--there isn't much of an espionage risk with course content
--but companies should be worried. China has a reputation for corporate
espionage, and while Zoom is nominally an American company, headlines like
this remind us it's also very Chinese (dev office, data centers).

~~~
MintelIE
The recent arrest of Charles Lieber and other professors shows that academia
is a big target for the Chinese.

------
joyfulmantis
So are you saying that companies operating in New Zealand shouldn't follow New
Zealand law to ban the Christchurch shooter's manifesto?

~~~
fossuser
No, I’m saying that there isn’t an immediate answer to any of these questions
and companies need to evaluate it themselves when deciding.

The country’s own legal framework isn’t enough to decide for you.

I think your moral relativism is lame, both here and in your other comments.
It might feel good to offload that responsibility, but if you do, and you
operate in a country that has problematic laws, then your self-assured
relativism can get others killed.

~~~
lukevdp
The choice for companies is to either follow a country’s laws, or not operate
in that country. It’s not moral relativism, it’s just business.

~~~
christophilus
Kind of like when IBM sold counting machines to the Nazis so they could better
track how many Jews they were gassing. Just business.

------
duxup
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an
inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

------
techgiant_guy
WhatsApp is addressing 20 person video calls to compete with Zoom & Google
Meets.

Ref - [https://l1n.com/whatsapp-is-addressing-20-person-video-
calls...](https://l1n.com/whatsapp-is-addressing-20-person-video-calls-to-
compete-with-zoom-google-meets/)

------
cheesecracker
Germany mandates by law that social networks like Facebook or Twitter censor
people on government request. I have yet to see the global outrage over it.

