Daily Archives: August 2, 2017

Last week, consumer tech giant Apple removed all major VPN apps from the Chinese branch of its Apps Store, seemingly putting yet another barrier in place for millions of Chinese citizens who might desire to defy their governments pervasive internet censorship system. On Tuesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook explained why Apple chose to comply with the wishes of Chinese censors.

Its pretty simple, in Cooks telling. Unlicensed VPNs are against the law in China now, and Apple has to obey the law, period.

The central government in China back in 2015 started tightening the regulations associated with VPN apps, Cook told investors and media during Apples Q3 2017 earnings and conference call, per TechCrunchs Matthew Lynley. We have a number of those on our store. Essentially, as a requirement for someone to operate a VPN they have to have a license from the government there.

Earlier this year, they began a renewed effort to enforce that policy, he continued. We were required by the government to remove some of those VPN apps from the app store that dont meet these new regulations ... Today theres still hundreds of VPN apps on the app store, including hundreds by developers outside China. We would obviously rather not remove the apps, but like we do in other countries we follow the law wherever we do business.

Heres where Cooks reply gets a little more cynical.

We believe in engaging with governments even when we disagree, Cook continued. This particular case, were hopeful that over time the restrictions were seeing are loosened, because innovation really requires freedom to collaborate and communicate.

Cook compared the controversy to Apples 2016 battle with US authorities over iPhone security features, saying the situation last year was very different because US law was on the companys side. But he added if US law changed, Apple would have no choice but to comply.

In the case of China, the law is very clear there, Cook said. Like we would if the US changed the law here, we have to abide by them in both cases. That doesnt mean that we dont state our point of view in the appropriate way, we always do that.

Heres the thing: Apple isnt really engaging Chinese censors so much as complying with their orders, and theres no way removing the VPN apps will somehow result in that censorship being loosened. Its at best a tradeoff between maintaining market access on one hand, and collaborating with the current Chinese censorship system on the other.

Without getting into an argument on the merits of Chinese artist Ai Weiweis work, he hit something on the head in a New York Times editorial earlier this year: Whenever the state controls or blocks information, it not only reasserts its absolute power; it also elicits from the people whom it rules a voluntary submission to the system and an acknowledgment of its dominion. While Apples decision to remove the VPN apps may be mandated by the absolute power of the Chinese state, its also clearly reinforcing part two of the equation, voluntary submission to said power.

Cook, of course, is clearly aware of thiswhich is why he mentioned Apple would have no choice but to comply with a US censorship regime, too. Hes not exactly wrong. But its also a reminder of how any abuse of power requires enablers, and institutions whose bottom line rely on compliance are probably not going to save anyone from autocracy. With a few exceptions, theyll usually comply.

Elsewhere during the call, Cook noted, mainland China sales are doing just fine. The companys poor performance was mostly due to poor sales in the mostly autonomous region of Hong Kong, which has much less restrictive laws on censorship.

[Matthew Lynley]

See the article here:
Tim Cook Says Apple Had to Comply With Chinese Censors, and They'd Do It in the US Too - Gizmodo

The move came at roughly the same time that Apple said it took down a number of apps from its China app store that help users vault the Great Firewall. Those apps helped users connect to the rest of the internet world using technology called virtual private networks, or VPNs.

Taken together, the recent moves by Apple and Amazon show how Beijing is increasingly forcing Americas biggest tech companies to play by Chinese rules if they want to maintain access to the market. The push comes even as the number of foreign American tech companies able to operate and compete in China has dwindled.

Beijing has become increasingly emboldened in pushing Americas internet giants to follow its local internet laws, which forbid unregistered censorship-evasion software. Analysts say the government has been more aggressive in pressuring companies to make concessions following the passage of a new cybersecurity law, which went into effect June 1, and ahead of a sensitive Communist Party conclave set for late autumn.

The government has been intent on tightening controls domestically as well. It recently shut down a number of Chinese-run VPNs. New rules posted to government websites in recent days said Communist Party members can be punished for viewing illegal sites and that they must register all foreign or local social media accounts.

Also in response to the new law, Apple said it planned to open a new data center in China and store user data there.

Ms. Wang, who said that Sinnet handles Amazon Web Services operations across China, said that the company has sent letters warning users about such services in the past but that the government had been more focused on other issues.

Amazon Web Services allows companies small and large to lease computing power instead of running their websites or other online services through their own hardware and software. Because Amazons cloud services allow customers to lease servers in China, it could be used to give Chinese internet users access to various types of software that would help them get around the Great Firewall.

Keeping in line with censorship rules is only a part of it. In cloud computing, China requires foreign companies have a local partner and restricts them from owning a controlling stake in any cloud company. New proposed laws, which have drawn complaints of protectionism from American politicians, further restrict the companies from using their own brand and call for them to terminate and report any behavior that violates Chinas laws.

While Microsoft and Amazon both run cloud services in China, similar ones run by local Chinese internet rivals dwarf them in scale. In particular Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba runs its own cloud services, which have grown rapidly in China. In order to operate in the country, Chinas biggest internet companies must stay in close contact with the government and carry out Beijings various demands, whether they be a request for user data or to censor various topics.

While China is not a major market for Amazon, the company has been in the country for a long time and has been pushing its cloud computing services there. Also recently the company announced a partnership with the state-run telecom China Mobile to create a Kindle, the companys e-reader device, aimed at the local Chinese market.

Adam Wu in Beijing contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on August 2, 2017, on Page B7 of the New York edition with the headline: Limiting Online Content, Amazons Cloud Service Bows to Chinas Censors.

The rest is here:
Joining Apple, Amazon's China Cloud Service Bows to Censors - New York Times

YouTube has announced a new system to catch and flag what it calls controversial religious and supremacist videos hosted on the platform. The platform plans to hide these videos from wider audiences, and demonetize them to prevent their creators from earning revenue from YouTube.

The move was met with widespread skepticism from YouTube content creators.

To crack down on offensive content, the company is using a combination of machine learning and volunteer experts to flag that needs review. It also plans to implement tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate the sites terms of service.

YouTube says it isnt going to remove the borderline content entirely, but will instead place these videos in a purgatory state preventing them from being monetized or promoted. To facilitate these changes, YouTube will be artificially altering its search algorithms to prevent offensive topics from discovery.

Well soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that arent illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos dont violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, wont be recommended, wont be monetized, and wont have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.

According to YouTube, the system, while largely automated, will mix in human reviews in the form of its already established Trusted Flagger volunteer program that works with over 15 institutions to deal with extremist content, including the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL recently released a list naming members of the alt-right and the alt-lite, the latter of which included controversial YouTube personalities like Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, and Brittany Pettibone.

Its worth noting that the Trusted Flagger system was later transformed into the much maligned YouTube Heroes program, which invited the public to help moderate content. It was heavily criticized for giving social justice activists the power to manipulate the platform.

Despite the apparent focus on targeting extremism, YouTubes announcement includes the companys efforts to artificially promote videos through its Creators for Change program, which in YouTubes own words pushes creators who are using their voices to speak out against hate speech, xenophobia, and extremism.

High-profile feminists, including Franchesca Ramsey, are listed as ambassadors and fellows. Notably absent is Laci Green, whose strong 1.5 million subscriber count earns her top billing as the sites most popular feminist. Green has come under fire from social justice advocates for opening dialogue with anti-feminists.

If a video doesnt break YouTubes terms of services then they absolutely SHOULD NOT be attempting to dampen the reach of the video any further, said YouTuber Annand Bunty King Virk, who raised his concerns with The Daily Caller. Who determines whats passable and what isnt? At what point do we finally realize that saying the right thing isnt always about saying what people want to hear?

By these standards, if YouTube existed previous to the Emancipation Act, theyd be censoring videos criticizing slave owners, since being anti-slavery wasnt popular at all, he added. The popular opinion isnt always the right opinion.

Matt Jarbo, who goes by MundaneMatt on YouTube, shared his views with The Daily Caller on the move. They know its almost a non-issue completely, Jarbo said. But due to the controversies surrounding those videos, theyve gotten a much larger spotlight than they deserve.

I do not trust their ability [to automatically flag extremist content], he said. I think they have an algorithm in place to help combat those issues, but its not narrow enough to not impact the skeptical/anti-SJW content.

YouTuber Jeff Holiday told The Daily Caller that he doesnt worry about the policy affecting his revenue, as hes already diversified his income with other platforms, but worries that the crackdown will affect other creators.

The move to counter extremist content is of course a good one in theory, Holiday said. But the language used in their announcement does not fill me with confidence it will be restricted to legitimate extremism. I remain optimistic but wary.

YouTube has a clear bias given who they choose to promote for free on their site such as Francesca Ramsey who perpetually produces vastly disliked videos, he remarked.

That isnt to say there is a case for them censoring controversial content. Ive had a few videos marked advertiser unfriendly, but it hasnt been something perpetual. But hearing they might crack down further does concern me greatly. Again, not for the income, but for the potential disincentives it may cause future creators of controversial politics.

I do think there are valid concerns in Google possibly funding legitimate extremist enterprises, but the fact is that people like to abuse systems, especially automated ones, said YouTuber Chris Maldonado, whos also known as Chris Ray Gun. Its really only a matter of time before this backfires in some ridiculous way.

The curator of Undoomed, a channel that regularly makes light of social justice warriors, shared his concerns about YouTubes new direction.

No one can really say whos going to be impacted by this new road map, and thats the point isnt it? If their policies and terms of service arent there to help guide creators anymore, then why even have them? So really, anyone could be at risk without even knowing it, he said.

I have no problem with YouTube cracking down on terrorist recruitment videos and the likes, clarified Undoomed. What I dont understand is how such videos couldve possibly been considered acceptable under the extant TOS and policies.

I think there is a high probably for collateral damage with this new attitude, he said. Some people could conceivably consider skeptics and anti-SJWs extremists, while all we are doing is arguing for a little common sense, and of course for freedom of speech as demanded by the Constitution.

My suspicion is that trusted flaggers is just a code word for the usual suspects. i.e. the same type of radical left-wing reactionaries that have reshaped Twitter into an Orwellian nightmare, he concluded.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Read more:
Popular YouTubers React To Censorship Of 'Controversial' Content - The Daily Caller

What do Winnie the Pooh, an image of an empty chair, and Justin Bieber have in common? They all have been recently banned by Chinese censors. BBCreportedthat China banned Winnie the Pooh from its social media sites because bloggers have been comparing him to Chinas President Xi Jinping.

Since the late NobelLaureateLiu Xiaobos death, Chinese WhatsApp userscomplainedthat Chinese censors blocked their attempts to send images of an empty chair to commemorate Liu inreal time. Last but not least, Chinese Bieber fans weretoldrecently by Beijings Culture Bureau that the Canadian pop star is banned from having concerts in China due to his past bad behaviors which caused public dissatisfaction. Thus banning him is necessary to purify Chinas domestic entertainment scene.

Id never imagined that Winnie the Pooh, an image of an empty chair, and Justin Bieber would all become symbols of liberty one day. For the last 30 years, while the daily lives of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, their opportunities for free speech, assembly, and expression havent. Chinas wealth enables the Chinese government to control information flow, promote propaganda, and monitor and suppress dissent much more efficiently and effectively.

With Communist Partys leadership reshuffle getting close, Beijing has stepped up its censorship. Banning Winnie the Pooh and Justin Bieber are small potatoes compared to Chinas latestcrackdown on virtual private networks (VPNs), a popular method Chinese use to bypass Chinese authorities Great Firewall. The most intrusive tool the government deploys is facial recognition technology and iris scanners installed everywhere to keep a watchful eye on the entire Chinese population.

The Wall Street Journalestimatedthat China has 176 million surveillance cameras in public and private hands, and the nation will install about 450 million new ones by 2020. The U.S., by comparison, has about 50 million.Chinas vast, technology-driven surveillance system has made it easier for the state to arrest political dissidents. The all-seeing big brother George Orwell imagined in 1984 has become a reality in China.

During Maos Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), the Chinese government not only controlled every aspect of each citizens lifewhat to eat, how much to eat, where to live, and what one was supposed to do for a livingbut it also demanded full control of every citizens mind through thought control. Today the Chinese government no longer decide how much people can eat, but the state has even better control over the Chinese peoples minds.

Not all censorship flows from top-down. Many Chinese citizens and businesses have taken cues from the government and censor themselves. Chinas popular video and Internet streaming sitescleanedthemselves up by voluntarily taking down all foreign films and TV shows, replacing them with government-sanctioned propaganda that glorifies the Communist Party in the name of social harmony and patriotism.

One livestream showed a young woman host who dressed in Red Army uniform and filmed herself buying Mao Zedong badges at a gift shop. Chinas information control is so successful that she was probably never told that someone in her family perished during the man-made famine or tortured by Maos Red Guards in similar uniforms only four decades ago. Even if she was told the truth, will it change her self-censored behavior?

The most worrisome part of this whole situation is that while some Chinese reject state thought control (and pay a dear price for their struggle), many not only accept the governments propaganda, but also vigorously defend it. Pew Researchshowsroughly three-quarters (77%) of the [Chinese] public believes that their way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence.

Why should we care whats going on inside China? Because the impact of Chinas censorship and thought-control can be easily felt outside China. Many Chinese overseas echo propaganda like people inside China do. The most famous Chinese Internet troll group, Little Pink, is largely made up of Chinese females both inside and outside China. Theyre notorious for bombardingthe overseas social media of anyone who expresses any negative views about China, even fellow Chinese.

In May this year, Chinese student Yang Shuping gave a commencementspeechat the University of Maryland. She praised the fresh air and freedom of speech in the United States and contrasted it to her experiences growing up in China: wearing a mask to fight air pollution and passively accepting government-authenticated truth. Many Chinese netizens, especially those from Little Pink, called her a traitor who was sucking up to westerners at the expense of belittling her motherland. Many demanded that she apologize, which she did.

Still, her home address was posted online and some Chinese threatened her should she return to China. Even the Chinese government stepped in,withthe spokesperson of Chinas foreign ministry stating all Chinese should behave responsibly in their public statements.The cyber bullying and harsh reaction from China actually proved Yangs point that China lacks freedom of speech and thought.

But its the oversea reaction from Chinese to this student that really shocked me. Some Chinese students did speak out to support her, but it seems their rational reaction was drowned out by criticism. The Chinese Students and Scholars Association at the University of Maryland quickly put out aproud of China video campaign. Throughmedia interviewsand social media postings, many Chinese students in the United States said Yang was unpatriotic and she embarrassed herself and her motherland by speaking ill of her country in front of a biased western crowd.

I recently experienced such a feverish defense of China in the United States first hand. At the Las Vegas Freedom Fest, one of the largest libertarian gatherings, one of my fellow panelists was a 30-something young man who emigrated from China to the United States when he was 12. Facing a libertarian-conservative audience, he confidently proclaimed that Chinese President Xi is a virtuous leader, Chinas current economic system is laissez faire capitalism, western-style democracy is not suitable for China because of Confucianism, Chinas one-child policy was humane, and people can freely express themselves in China without any repercussions.

It was almost as if he took the talking points from Chinas foreign ministry and just read them. I thought he was telling a joke, but he finished his speech with a straight face. Later during the Q&A, he demonstrated that he believed everything he said by defending his statements unequivocally, despite mountains of evidence provided by other panelists.

If we believe some people inside China defend the government because they dont have access to information due to censorship, or they are doing so out of fear, whats the excuse for oversea Chinese like this young man and those from the Little Pink, who have all the information at their fingertips yet willingly accept and defend lies? They are the latest proof that Cultural Revolution-style censorship and thought control never dies because so many Chinese are willing participants and enforcers. If people like this young man can live among us for so long but stay immune to western ideas of human freedom, what does this say about the strength of our education, culture, values, and ideas, compared to the power of Chinas censorship and propaganda?

The ripple effect of Chinas censorship obviously doesnt stop at Chinas border. We in the west need to not only keep an eye on whats going on inside China, but also be aware how that affects our lives here. Its time we realize that not everyone who comes here and lives among us naturally seeks truth and freedom. Orwell wrote in1984thatThe choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness, and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better. If we want the bulk of mankind to choose freedom, we have a lot of work to do.

The rest is here:
China's Censorship Powers Are More Dangerous Than You Know - The Federalist