In China, Shutterstock Censors Hong Kong and Other Searches (theintercept.com) 50
Shutterstock, the well-known online purveyor of stock images and photographs, is the latest U.S. company to willingly support China's censorship regime, blocking searches that might offend the country's authoritarian government, The Intercept reported this week. From the report: The publicly traded company built a $639 million-per-year business on the strength of its vast -- sometimes comically vast -- catalog of images depicting virtually anything a blogger or advertiser could imagine. The company now does business in more than 150 countries. But in China, there is now a very small, very significant gap in Shutterstock's offerings. In early September, Shutterstock engineers were given a new goal: The creation of a search blacklist that would wipe from query results images associated with keywords forbidden by the Chinese government. Under the new system, which The Intercept is told went into effect last month, anyone with a mainland Chinese IP address searching Shutterstock for "President Xi," "Chairman Mao," "Taiwan flag," "dictator," "yellow umbrella," or "Chinese flag" will receive no results at all. Variations of these terms, including "umbrella movement" -- the precursor to the mass pro-democracy protests currently gripping Hong Kong -- are also banned.
[...] Shutterstock's censorship feature appears to have been immediately controversial within the company, prompting more than 180 Shutterstock workers to sign a petition against the search blacklist and accuse the company of trading its values for access to the lucrative Chinese market. Chinese internet users already struggle to discuss even the tamest of taboo subjects; now, it seemed, the situation would get a little worse, with the aid of yet another willing American company.
[...] Shutterstock's censorship feature appears to have been immediately controversial within the company, prompting more than 180 Shutterstock workers to sign a petition against the search blacklist and accuse the company of trading its values for access to the lucrative Chinese market. Chinese internet users already struggle to discuss even the tamest of taboo subjects; now, it seemed, the situation would get a little worse, with the aid of yet another willing American company.
One Wonders (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably even more withdrawn and backwards, with mandatory whitelisting, and mandatory inspections to make sure you're not violating it.
Re: One Wonders (Score:2)
When laws are difficult to enforce they instead increase the punishment.
Western corporation that enjoy the benefits of a free democracy should not be aiding a repressive totalitarian foreign government. But we also acknowledge that there is almost nothing that a company can do to fix what's wrong with China.
Re: (Score:2)
Western corporation that enjoy the benefits of a free democracy should not be aiding a repressive totalitarian foreign government. But we also acknowledge that there is almost nothing that a company can do to fix what's wrong with China.
Agreed on both counts. Play fascism games, win fascism prizes.
Re: (Score:2)
Economic isolation tends to stabalize autocratic regimes. Outside influence is reduced, and the regime can accuse domestic dissidents of being traitors and foreign puppets.
The two autocratic regimes with the most severe economic isolation are North Korea and Cuba. The two autocratic regimes that have lastest the longest are North Korea and Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One Wonders (Score:2)
If we hadn't helped them build advanced tools for efficient political repression, they would have been stuck with primitive, inefficient political repression!!
Re: (Score:2)
That's about the size of it. There would be repression either way. It's still morally reprehensible to aid them, but they would have just done it the hard way. It's not like labor is expensive in China.
What we should be doing is encouraging them to not be abusive by simply refusing to reward abuse. Making their wrongdoings unprofitable is the way to dissuade them. And doing that is best done with tariffs, ironically enough - though not precisely as enacted by Cheeto Mussolini. Pollution taxes and (for lack
Re: One Wonders (Score:2)
"Pollution taxes and (for lack of a better word) slavery taxes"
Yup, I agree completely. Environmental and labor equalization tariffs are they way to go. And if we can ever get off the damned oil, we can allow the currency to slowly, gracefully sink to it's natural level.
"Unfortunately, what we have instead is a trade war for profit of specific industries that hurts American workers"
Alas the partisan alternative to President Trump's so called "trade war" was to double down on the disastrously failed policies
Re: (Score:2)
Alas the partisan alternative to President Trump's so called "trade war" was to double down on the disastrously failed policies of one-sided "free" trade and ruinous deindustrialization. It appears we got the better of the two options on the table.
Better for who? Big Ag, which consistently collects the majority of farm subsidies? It's not like these tariffs are likely to outlast Trump. They are also a boon to manufacturers in countries other than China, which can for example buy Chinese steel and turn it into finished products, then export them to the US — avoiding steel tariffs and transferring profit to their own countries.
Carbon and slave labor taxes on goods from all countries would have actually placed pressure where it's needed. Instead,
What's the goal here (Score:2, Insightful)
So people are finally noticing that US companies act differently in other countries because US law isn't Universal World Law. That includes places like Europe where eBay can't sell Nazi shit or Japan where TV shows have to be censored to hide the genitals. If you buy Watchmen on DVD over there they pixelated Dr. Manhattan's dick.
What's the goal here? To punish US companies for not breaking the law in other countries, or at least adapting media to local tastes? I'm not sure that's a good idea for a number of
Re:What's the goal here (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the question you should be asking is when does assisting an oppressive government go too far? China is known to have hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions in re-education camps, and is known to kidnap & tortures dissidents or their family members.
Why do you think it is reasonable that we allow companies to help Xi cover up his, and his predecessors systematic human rights abuses?
Re: (Score:1)
I think the question you should be asking is when does assisting an oppressive government go too far?
Indeed. But if you consider some things okay and somethings "too far" then removing some images from a stock photo search seems rather innocuous. Your outrage should be directed at a better target.
Re: (Score:2)
I did make the point that they might actually be undermining those governments. It's it better to have a censored version that often does result in people finding out what they were not allowed to see, or is it better to have nothing?
Or did you have a third option in mind?
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the citizens don't even know there are questions they should be asking. They've spent their entire lives being lied to by state media, and any chance of finding the truth hidden by companies like Shutterstock & Cisco. Just look at the nonsense perpetrated by Chinese nationals last week when Notepad++ dared to question the Chinese state.
I don't know how closely you follow global news but Chinese international students have literally been attacking Taiwanese and Hong Kong protesters globally -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the goal here (Score:4, Insightful)
It's false equivalence. Censorship for cultural norms is different than censorship as government propaganda. Certainly there are governments that insist their propaganda is their cultural norm, but we all see it as bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like Communism, don't have to support, pay for, buy, use a brand.
In the free West we still have the ability and right to talk about what any brand supports.
Consumers are better informed and can spend their money with in other ways if they so want...
A company selected Communist China, a consumer has the freedom in the West to consider that and support another company.
Re: What's the goal here (Score:3)
The point is, it ought be made illegal for American companies to help repress political expression at the behest of foreign countries.
If the restriction are only in China - (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't fault the company. I disagree with the stance but they're following the laws of the nation they're operating in and that includes HK as they're technically, legally, part of China.
Now if they block worldwide - that's a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Where are the servers?
Doesn't matter. They are accepting payments in Chinese currency from Chinese citizens, through Chinese banks, in China, so they are subjected to Chinese law.
They are obligated to either obey the law or pull out of China. Pulling out would accomplish absolutely nothing.
Re: If the restriction are only in China - (Score:3)
"They are obligated to either obey the law or pull out of China."
Correct.
"Pulling out would accomplish absolutely nothing."
Whereas if they stay, they will accomplish the ever-so-desirable goal of being despicable collaborationist scumbags while dragging the good name of their company and of our whole country through the mud. Winning!
Re: (Score:3)
I can't fault the company. I disagree with the stance but they're following the laws of the nation they're operating in and that includes HK as they're technically, legally, part of China.
Now if they block worldwide - that's a problem.
Yes, the company is literally following orders. What if the order includes reporting the IP addresses of all requests to forbidden terms? Then it's no longer the arguably innocuous blocking of content but actions that might lead to social score downgrades or maybe even economic or physical harm. In that case, would it still be just following orders? What if the search queries come from Xinjiang? Yes, the laws are legal by definition, but a lot of really bad things were technically legal, things like sl
Next step is China censoring the USA content (Score:2)
If you have major business in China, what do you do when the Chinese government says that it does not like you showing certain photos IN THE USA, and that they will not be happy with you if you do (meaning they will shut you down in China)?
It would not as broad a censorship as in China, but that photo of a Uyghur concentration camp needs to go.
You start censoring the USA of course. Your job is to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean how the EU ruled? If a court orders a takedown of someone's data in the EU from a company's servers it must be taken down worldwide.
And yeah, I've got a big problem with that.
Re: INT COMPANIES NEED TO STAYOUT OF POLITICS!!! (Score:2)
Why are you so afraid of your fellow citizens being allowed to speak freely?
Western companies all support China. (Score:2)
China is a trap businesses can't help falling into (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies do business in China because they often don't have much of a choice (or at least they believe that enough to act upon it). If companies don't have a choice, then, who does? The government. China is a bad actor. They're a totalitarian regime that oppresses their own people and sometimes other people and they secure the funding to stay in power by profiting off foreign businesses operating there and by stealing (and sometimes seizing) the intellectual and/or physical assets of foreign businesses and then reproducing their products with state sponsorship and without costly regulations designed to protect people and the environment. Long term, their actions are a threat to innovation, to global economic stability, to the freedom of people in and around their area of control, and to the environment that keeps us all alive. A government mandate to take them out of the picture so businesses don't have to think about going there to compete is exactly what is needed, for both ethical and pragmatic reasons.
I don't agree with Trump often (and in some respects I think he isn't much better than the Chinese government), but I agree that China is a problem that needs to be addressed at the government level and that the solution must, to some degree, either prevent businesses from considering China as a market or must extract concessions that give our businesses more protection and require more regulation on theirs. This trade war began a long time ago, we're just finally responding to it with a policy other than denial and appeasement. Whether it'll work or not... I guess we'll see.
There's no economic consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
As a member of the ruling class China is nearly all upsides. Go look up Mitt Romney's speech on the Chinese people where he marveled at how they'd work 12 hours on a bit of tea and a biscuit.
As for ethical concerns, well, there you go again betraying your working class roots. The ruling class is above all that. Just look at Saudi Arabia's ruling class. The men wear flashy clothing, the women dress in bikinis and the both live opulent lives at odds with the strict religious regimens of their working class.
The world's changed. Our betters are global now. We need to recognize that fact and adjust how we contain them. To paraphrase Warren Buffet (I think): there's a class war on right now, and his class is winning.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking like a member of a class.
Any of them will do for the purposes of discussion and dialectical materialism.
I suggest we all get together and evaluate outcomes in 150 years. Including the Chinese totalitarians. There's only one way to contain them, and it's been thoroughly established.
Spoiler: It involves fire.
That's because I am (Score:2)
Western governments should take a slice of the pie (Score:2)
Special tax on companies for the privilege of supporting dictators (China, Saudi Arabia etc.)
I don't know what's worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese censorship, or the fact that the SJW run big tech is racing to catch up with them. Google's 'ML Fairness' doctrine is especially disturbing considering their position.
"America's commitment to freedom" is nice PR but that's all it is.
Big tech isn't SJW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must have just been imagining all the one-sided firings, censorship and deplatforming, then.
When just a few corporations can control most of people's digital communications, and they have a completely leftist bent that comes from being submersed in the SJW strongholds of Silicon Valley and San Francisco, then Chinese style censorship will follow because both have about the same regard for free speech and exchange of ideas that isn't in lockstep with their own dogma.
SJWism is very much part of that m
The USA is NOT China (Score:2)
Sure, the USA under Trump does some nasty things like abandoning the Kurds. They are not much of a world policeman, although in several situations like Bosnia they did a pretty decent job.
But the USA does not have concentration camps like China. It does not censor free speech. It has a relatively free press. And a democracy in which any idiot can vote and most of those votes are counted.
The last is important. Not because it produces good governments. But because it provides a peaceful mechanism to get
We have more prisoners than China (Score:1)
And this is before we talk about the concentration camps on the boarder. Did you know that the Nazis camps got their start from camps bu
That's a dubious claim. (Score:2)
And did you think labor is a new component to our prison system? Have you never heard of someone being sentenced to "hard labor"? Ever hear of a "chain-gang"? Have you never seen prisoners doing road work?
Yes, there are some corrup
Best platform for movies and also web design compa (Score:1)
I'm concerned about foreign influence (Score:2)
Over on reddit there's a very blatant political divide between /r/hongkong and /r/hong_kong. Fun fact, if you ask what they think of police acting as agent provocateurs on /r/hong_kong, you get a free life-time ban. It might as well be an arm of the Chinese government.
Mao is on the list? (Score:2)
Not that I really mind, what's bad for China is probably good for everyone else in the world.