YouTube Blocks Hong Kong's Next Leader John Lee (variety.com) 88
YouTube, the Google-owned video streaming platform, has removed the account of John Lee Ka-chiu, the policeman-turned-politician who is poised to take over as Hong Kong's next leader. From a report: All content on Lee's YouTube page has been removed. In its place is a message that reads: "This account has been terminated for violating Google's Terms of Service." Lee's campaign office said on Wednesday that it had been informed by Google that the removal of the account was in accordance with the company's compliance with U.S. sanctions. "We find this very regrettable and completely unreasonable, but we think they can't stop us from spreading our candidate's message -- our campaign's message -- to the public," said Tam Yiu-chung, head of Lee's campaign office.
Lee is one of a dozen officials who were sanctioned by the U.S. in 2020 and had been deemed responsible for the implementation of the Beijing-imposed National Security Law in July that year. Lee is now the only candidate in next month's small circle election for Chief Executive. The election, which is not open to the public and instead involves just 1,500 carefully-selected voters, will go ahead on May 8. Lee's five-year term of office will begin from July 1, 2022. "Google complies with applicable U.S. sanctions laws and enforces related policies under its Terms of Service. After review and consistent with these policies, we terminated the Johnlee2022 YouTube channel," told the South China Morning Post.
Lee is one of a dozen officials who were sanctioned by the U.S. in 2020 and had been deemed responsible for the implementation of the Beijing-imposed National Security Law in July that year. Lee is now the only candidate in next month's small circle election for Chief Executive. The election, which is not open to the public and instead involves just 1,500 carefully-selected voters, will go ahead on May 8. Lee's five-year term of office will begin from July 1, 2022. "Google complies with applicable U.S. sanctions laws and enforces related policies under its Terms of Service. After review and consistent with these policies, we terminated the Johnlee2022 YouTube channel," told the South China Morning Post.
I am unamused... (Score:1, Troll)
I am unamused that google lies about its sanction compliance. That's not a ToS-violation, it's external political influence.
They should have said "this account is sanctioned" instead.
Such a little thing, and even there google can't bring itself to be honest.
Re:I am unamused... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's still disingenious to blame someone for breaking the ToS when it was the US that issued the sanctions.
Isn't it a violation of ToS if ToS says you can't use a service because of sanctions and you do it anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... no. Google is not obligated to die on that hill. Sanctions may be unfair and sanctions may be fickle... though I would argue that these are neither, and China should, if anything, suffer more sanctions for breaking their "two systems" agreement wrt/ Hong Kong. But Google did not impose them and Google is required to obey them. If YOU have a business and YOU want to violate sanction to make whatever your point is, that's your call. But Google doesn't have to stand with you ion that hill, certain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am unamused... (Score:4, Informative)
I am unamused that google lies about its sanction compliance. That's not a ToS-violation, it's external political influence.
I don't know man but Google's ToS specifically state the following:
"Respect others
We want to maintain a respectful environment for everyone, which means you must follow these basic rules of conduct:
comply with applicable laws, including export control, sanctions, and human trafficking laws"
Sounds like if you're a sanctioned person you can't comply with Google's ToS.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone tell google that there's no law against "being disrespectful".
Indeed there's not. Sadly there's also no laws that can teach you how to parse an English sentence. That sentence does not mean that following the law is the magical ingredient to respect.
Does the US send out letters, "you better unfriend Xi Jinping yesterday or we're gonna sanction you"? Phone texts, emails, youtube messages or twitter DMs maybe?
Yes. Well not letters, they publish updates on government sanctions pages and expect people to follow them. All countries do. I for one just filled out a questionnaire today about Australian sanctions because someone we do business with is on a list in Australia. Note I don't actually live in Australia or work for an Austr
Re: (Score:1)
Surprised? Not really: https://punchbowl.news/wp-cont... [punchbowl.news]
Re: I am unamused... (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2, Funny)
You don't have to block sanctioned persons (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
he’s in Hong Kong. Pretty sure American law does not apply. And companies are not able to break the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
American laws do apply, though, to American companies as long as they are American, or sometimes even if they are not but have presence in the US, as almost all large companies do. See banking laws for examples of that.
Re: (Score:1)
Not laws. Law. Applied to this. In this case. Don’t expand context to move the goalposts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so the fault is with you, not actually speaking or knowing how to use a language - that you're trying to use to convey thoughts and ideas.
Them nouns... They can be a bitch to use.
Also, it's laws.
And they DO apply.
United States sanctions
In August 2020, Lee and ten other officials were sanctioned by the United States Department of the Treasury under Executive Order 13936 by President Trump for undermining Hong Kong's autonomy.[36][37][38]
He owns a flat at King's Park Villa in Ho Man Tin, bought in 1997 for HK $12.5 million and fully paid off, eliminating possible issues from his bank and the US sanctions.[39]
On 14 October 2020, Lee was listed on a United States Department of State report as one of 10 individuals who materially contributed to the failure of China to meet its obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law. [40]
On 20 April 2022, Lee's YouTube account for his Chief Executive bid, johnlee2022, was removed by Google as they justified that "the move was required by US sanctions" against the ex-security chief.
Re: (Score:1)
Is there a law that says YouTube cannot cut off your account for any and all reasons? Sadly, we have given google near total control of this, and aside from civil lawsuits
As far as my ability to communicate, I assumed a certain level of context from previous layers of the conversation. Apologies if that context did not convey to you.
Either way, if google thinks you’re giving them side-eye, they can cut you off and unless you got money to burn in a legal battle, or can get public opinion to focus for
Re: (Score:2)
He's a sanctioned person. The laws have nothing to do with him and everything to do with American citizens or American corporations.
For a multinational corporation it is even more complicated as they need to comply with the laws of all countries in which they operate and in which their employees have citizenship.
E.g. I work for a British company. I'm based in Europe. Yet I got sent a sanction checklist from Legal to confirm that I am in compliance with Australian law as Australia has sanctioned Russia regar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The first amendment doesn't apply to Hong Kong citizens operating in Hong Kong. Nor does the first amendment prevent private companies from censoring content.
But, they can argue that Youtube cannot claim 1st amendment freedom for some users and not others?
Re: You don't have to block sanctioned persons (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They do not have to block them true, but federal law gives companies every opportunity abide by sanctions if they apply at all. If it's unconstitutional some state court will review, but likely they'll push it up the ladder to the supreme court if they, someone wants to fight it, that is..
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't have to block them, it just can't trade with them/pay them.
Throughout history at no point has "doing business" with someone been exclusively linked to exchanging money. By hosting videos Google is providing a service to a customer regardless if that customer is paying/getting paid or not.
This is what happens... (Score:1, Troll)
when you normalize censorship, so it's no longer "a big deal" when it happens, right in broad daylight, and particularly when you go full-fascist and encourage the biggest and most powerful corporations to censor on behalf of a government, particularly one fully controlled by one political party.
The truth is that no element of American law requires Google or YouTube to censor anybody. No law is requiring them to do this, but the people at Google/YouTube have internally normalized this, so there was probably
Re: (Score:2)
The American government has the honor of setting foreign policy, as do all governments.
This includes which dictatorships corporations may engage with, and how much, and why.
Re: (Score:3)
Following the law of not doing business with a sanctioned entity is not censorship, it's a political weapon used in international disagreements.
Calling it censorship is disingenuous. What *you're doing* is normalising actual censorship as okay by comparing it to legitimate legal practices that exist the world over.
The truth is that no element of American law requires Google or YouTube to censor anybody.
Except for the Trading with the Enemy Act.
Oh and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Yeah those two laws.
Oh wait the Iraqi Sanctions Act, the United Nations Participation Act, the Int
Re:This is what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
When did we decide that private entities censoring things was bad anyways? I thought we worried about the government censoring things?
I censor things on slashdot for people all the time when I mark things -1 Troll. I censor my twitter feed with block lists and who I follow. I censor my friends by choosing who is invited to dinner tonight. Censorship is a good thing, it makes society livable. Censorship by a government is not a good thing, it gives them power. If they don't like that YouTube has decided not to speak to them, maybe they can find a new friend who will.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Censorship is bad. Even if private entities do it.
If you block people based on the way they present their ideas (ie, trolls), that's one thing. But if you block people based on their ideas, that's censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why you think opinionated disapproval of X = strawman Y is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with you? Why do you support corporate censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you support corporate censorship?
Because corporations have freedom of speech. You can't have it both ways. The courts have declared freedom of speech and freedom from speech (specifically the right not to speak or be associated with someone) as inseparable and have upheld those rulings for close to a century.
You want to ban a company from blocking your speech (effectively forcing them to carry your speech / opinion), fine. As soon as you rip up the first amendment we can get started on writing a new one, with less freedoms for companies, a
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is bad. Even if private entities do it.
No, when a private entity censors someone that is known as "free speech". Free speech is absolute and includes not having to carry someone else's speech. You can't be a proponent of free speech and also against private censorship. Freedom doesn't work like that.
Say what you want on the street, but my house my rules. That's my freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. If you don't think private entities can censor, you need to spend less time typing and more time learning what words mean.
Also, it concerns me that you immediately jump to the defense of people who want to censor ideas. What is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
No, when a private entity censors someone that is known as "free speech".
This is an oxymoron.
Preventing others from speaking does not itself constitute speech. The act of censorship communicates no thoughts or ideas. Censorship is an act separate from speech.
Free speech is absolute and includes not having to carry someone else's speech.
Free speech is merely the freedom of communicating thoughts and ideas without reprisal.
Preventing others from doing the same is an act of censorship which is the opposite of free speech.
You can't be a proponent of free speech and also against private censorship.
It doesn't matter who does the censorship it is still censorship and still impedes the freedom of others to communicate thoughts and idea
Re: (Score:2)
This is an oxymoron.
No it isn't because you probably missed the obvious: a private entity can't censor someone. To censor someone you have to suppress speech and ban public communication.
A private entity not carrying someone else's speech is neither suppression nor banning. You are always free to take your speech anywhere including starting your own platform. A law silencing a person or a viewpoint and making it illegal to share publicly, that is censorship by all accepted definitions.
Preventing others from doing the same
Not carrying your speech is not preventing
Re: (Score:2)
When did we decide that private entities censoring things was bad anyways? I thought we worried about the government censoring things?
Can't we be worried about both? And if the government is pressure private companies to censor then it is still censorship.
I read these posts and it makes me sad how the we have gone from condemning Hollywood and other companies censorship during the Red Scare to embracing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can not have the freedom of speech without the freedom of association. Take away one and the other is meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
When did we decide that private entities censoring things was bad anyways? I thought we worried about the government censoring things?
Maybe when we decided that the government can't use "private companies" to act unconstitutionally by proxy:
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying the federal government demanded censorship of conservative voices? Can you prove that? If not, it's pure freedom of association. Twitter gets to decide who's voices they promote. It is their soapbox they are letting people stand on. If you don't like it, you are free to make your own soap box.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh so you're one of those people using the -1 Troll mod all the time, eh. Please try to use it only on content that is actually trolling. Look up the definition maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm censoring the nazi ASCII art from my life. I'm ok with that.
Re: (Score:1)
When did we decide that private entities censoring things was bad anyways? I thought we worried about the government censoring things?
I think this happened when private entities became the medium through which most communicate. See also Marsh v Alabama.
I censor things on slashdot for people all the time when I mark things -1 Troll.
If you simply mark things you don't like as -1 Troll you are abusing the moderation system. The act of trolling is distinct from the act of speaking. Trolling does not communicate ideas it is just screwing with people for fun. Regardless of whether or not trolling is good or bad or should be allowed it is not free speech.
I censor my twitter feed with block lists and who I follow.
WOW... so a kill file is censorship now.. this is insane...where i
Re: (Score:2)
I see you think freedom of speech is more important than freedom of association. Both are in the first amendment, both are equally important. A company has the right to choose who they associate with (with very limited restrictions). Nothing stops free communication on the internet today. Anyone can get their message across. The idea of widespread corporate censorship affecting free speech is a lie. In fact, the people complaining the most are mostly all you hear from!
I do not use most social media as it is
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the Trading with the Enemy Act.
Oh and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Yeah those two laws.
Oh wait the Iraqi Sanctions Act, the United Nations Participation Act, the International Security and Development Cooperation Act, the Cuban Democracy Act, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. As well.
This is gish gallop.
Sanctions are about buying and selling both directly and indirectly. Sanctions don't require limitations on speech. A company may well come to the conclusion if they can't make money off of you then you are not worth the consumption of their resources. This is a choice. Nobody is being forced by law to limit speech.
I'll let you count the number of times you were wrong. God knows I've got better things to do than tally those up, and I'm not even certain if that list is complete.
I would be interested in learning about an "Act" that limits speech rather than commerce.
Any thoughts on why Kim Jong Un and Trump can have an adult conversation about th
Re: (Score:2)
Sanctions are about buying and selling both directly and indirectly.
No, Sanctions against people are about trading and doing business. Neither of those directly require the exchange of cash or goods in legal definition. Google is doing business by hosting youtube videos even if you never pay a dime.
I would be interested in learning about an "Act" that limits speech rather than commerce.
At least you got the word right that time. Unfortunately you still don't seem to understand how vague that word is defined in legal contexts. This is not a speech issue in the slightest.
Well like it or not YouTube has rights (Score:3)
If you have a problem with this the solution is to have the government create a public version of YouTube or anyone can post anything that is legal content (there are a handful of things it is illegal to say or show).
Also in this case the censorship is coming from capitalism. Specifically capitalist China is
That only applies to protected classes (Score:2)
Last I checked "violent asshole" wasn't a protected class. Neither is "corrupt, incompetent billionaire", though that last one is debatable.
Re: (Score:2)
One DMCA complaint would be enough (Score:1)
to get yourself cancelled on youtube.
Unless you get thousands of click, because than the Youtube moderation team is willing to throw all guidelines overboard.
At least they didn't block Ken Lee (Score:2)
Algorithms (Score:3)
Maybe the robots thought he was too close to violating Pokemon copyright. Better safe than sorry.
"election" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Universal suffrage has never been part of the definition of an election. It's an election, just like a company electing a CEO is an election.
Re:"election" (Score:4, Interesting)
How can it be an election if there's only one person?
That's a vote for approval, not an election.
Re: (Score:2)
How can it be an election if there's only one person?
That's a vote for approval, not an election.
Ever vote in a municipal election? Dozens of offices have only 1 candidate running, either because of lack of interest, or because so many people vote the party line there is no point in opposing them,
Re: (Score:3)
From "England's Reformation", Thomas Ward, 1688. The idea of an election with only one candidate permitted to stand is not new.
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a shock to you, but did you realize that only a handful of carefully selected voters (called the "electoral college") is actually allowed to vote for the President of the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
only a handful of carefully selected voters (called the "electoral college")
E-lected, not SE-lected.
It's called indirect election [wikipedia.org] and is a common part of that whole representative democracy thing.
In the US presidential elections, electors come prepackaged with the President, just like the Vice President or the Cabinet.
You don't vote for a single person - you vote for a whole team of people, led by that person.
And if that person then wins the election - well congratulations, you just voted for and elected the whole team too.
Including all those folks whose role is mostly ceremonial -
Re: (Score:2)
True enough.
Because when travel times from the edge of the country to the capitol is measured in months (as it was when the Constitution was written), you've got to streamline things wherever you can.
Hence the Electoral College - everyone votes for an elector they think they can trust to pick a guy they can trust to do things that can't be dealt with with a two month round trip from DC to, say, Louisiana and back....
Yeah, we could dump the Electoral College now, if desired. But why bother, until and unl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> unless something goes drastically wrong with the
> current system?
You haven't been paying attention to the elections for the last few decades, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you imagine that your favorite candidate will get elected if only we go to direct voting for President, then I've got a bridge to sell...cheap. Really!
You might want to look over the guys who got elected BEFORE the last few decades....
Political manipulation? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think? Any political bias at play?
You're joking right. He has active sanctions against him. Sanctions are 100% a political weapon, just not any form of bias from Google who simply follow the law, one of which is you don't do business with sanctioned people.
Re: (Score:2)
Reason he's sanctioned (Score:5, Interesting)
I came to the comments expecting a discussion of why this fellow was sanctioned. For those wondering, the National Security Law [wikipedia.org] he's accused of implementing on Hong Kong is a law passed by China intended to criminalise "secession" by Hong Kong, among other things. Hong Kong's a bit complicated, since they and their supporters (eg: US) deem them as a separate country, and China deems them as part of China (I'm simplifying a complex topic here.) So this law passed by China is another way for them to try to force HK to fall in line. I can understand why the US felt the need to impose sanctions, as from their perspective this is one country trying to rob another country of its independence.
For a wider perspective, the law was specifically worded to apply to everyone in HK (residents and non-residents, including tourists), as well as people outside HK. Imagine having China apply for your arrest and extradition from the USA simply because you posted a pro-democratic HK tweet. That is covered under this new law. I haven't heard of it being used that way yet, but we also don't get much uncensored news out of that area these days, so it's unclear if it's being used against people within China, for example.
Re:Reason he's sanctioned (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody really and truly thinks Hong Kong is another country. Nobody. The 50 year agreement between the UK and China started in 1997 when the Brits pulled out. The Brits negotiated a 99 year lease that was about to run out on what is called the New Territories and rather than retreat to Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, which were not covered by the lease, they agreed to give the whole territory back to China in a treaty that agreed to protect many of Hong Kong's special privileges that did not exist in China. This created what is called the Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong. Macau has its own SAR created at the end of 1999 between China and Portugal to get Portugal to leave. The official Chinese position on the SARs is "One country, two systems" so nobody really thinks Hong Kong is anything but a SAR that is part of China but has special rules.
This generally worked fine. Previous Chinese dictators, cough cough, sorry, "presidents" ignored Hong Kong and Hong Kong had protests on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, for example. Then a new dictator came in, Xi. This guy not only actually thinks Communism works, he's very anti-democratic. When Hong Kong protested a few years ago, Xi saw the protests as potentially dangerous to his rule for life if they spread, so changed the terms of the agreement that set up the SAR by passing new laws to supercede some of the old ones and make Hong Kong "unfree" and thus safe for China. So just like in Russia, black is now white, white is black, bad is good, good is bad, and all hail Glorious Leader Xi who will save over 1 billion Chinese people from any evil democratic thought.
John Lee Hooker (Score:2)
Back to 2004 (Score:2)
Every time I see something about YouTube "censorship", I remind myself the whole thing has only existed since 2005, and somehow democracy and justice and mercy survived the lack.
I admit, nobody but a few friends sees the videos I put up on my own web site, but only because nobody wants to. If I posted videos of an alien landing there, it would get busy in short order.
It's now "censorship" to "not give somebody a huge boost in attention" even though they have no alien landing. Benjamin Franklin had to