Topic: Censorship

Each post below is tagged with
  • Company/Division names
  • Topics
  • and
  • Narratives
  • as appropriate.
    Facebook Is Trying Everything to Re-Enter China—and It’s Not Working – WSJ (Jan 30, 2017)

    This is a great in-depth take on Facebook’s efforts to get back into China following the 2009 moves that saw it effectively blocked from operating in the country. The phrase I saw repeated most frequently in the article? Some version of “[Facebook executive] declined to to be interviewed,” which is indicative of just how carefully Facebook is treading in China – it would clearly like to get back in and compete for those billion-plus potential users along with the local social networks, and has even suggested that it’s willing to put up with a certain amount of censorship, but doesn’t yet seem to feel like the time is right. There would certainly be a big backlash against any censorship-based re-entry, especially if it felt like Facebook was willingly complicit rather than doing the bare minimum to comply, just as Google and Yahoo faced criticism over their activities in China in the past. This is definitely a double-edged sword for Facebook, though it’s not even clear at this point that it would be allowed back in even if it decided to give it a try. The whole piece is worth a read – lots of interesting detail here, much of which is also applicable to other big US tech companies that would like to be more active in China (or already are).

    via WSJ

    Snapchat Discover Takes a Hard Line on Misleading and Explicit Images – The New York Times (Jan 23, 2017)

    There’s a certain irony in the fact that Snapchat is now trying to remove some of the lewder images from its Discover tab, when its early reputation (somewhat undeservedly) was that of an app that existed specifically so that users could send each other such images of themselves. But this is the sort of thing we see as apps and services that have been allowed to run relatively unfettered begin to ramp up efforts to court advertisers in preparation for an IPO, which is exactly what Snap is doing. Cleaning up the Discover tab should provide some more comfort to advertisers about the context in which their ads will be seen, though there’s nothing in these guidelines about racy images that are relevant to the Stories behind them, which I’d say many of the images I see in the Discover tab arguably are. The other side of this effort could be increased user controls around the content they see on the Discover tab, since some users would prefer not to see those images or the Stories behind them at all – balancing the needs of publishers, advertisers, and users is always the hardest balancing act for any ad-backed business.

    via Snapchat Discover Takes a Hard Line on Misleading and Explicit Images – The New York Times

    Facebook temporarily blocked RT — and Moscow isn’t happy – The Washington Post (Jan 19, 2017)

    This is the latest in a string of occasions when Facebook has blocked specific content or an entire account on the basis of a supposed violation of its terms, only to reverse itself. But in this case, it’s a bit different – RT is a highly controversial Russian state-funded news outlet at a time when Russian interference in the US electoral process is a hot topic. The account’s privileges were quickly reinstated in this case, but there now appears to have been no legitimate reason to withdraw them in the first place, raising questions about who at Facebook made the decision to suspend the account and why. At a time when Facebook is trying to be more responsible about policing fake news and also working more closely with news organizations, this kind of thing won’t inspire a lot of confidence either among news organizations or among those inclined to belief Facebook’s fake news clampdown has a partisan bent.

    via Facebook temporarily blocked RT — and Moscow isn’t happy – The Washington Post

    China Orders Registration of App Stores – NYTimes (Jan 14, 2017)

    In and of itself, this new move by the Chinese government can be seen as relatively innocuous – the regulation is vague, and ostensibly motivated by policing the plethora of alternative app stores that exists in a market where the official Google Play store is unavailable. However, in the context of the recent request to remove the NY Times app from the App Store in China, this definitely has more sinister undertones. Having policed the web for years, China now appears to be trying to find ways to police the app stores as well, as a way to block access to content critical of the regime. This could end up getting very ugly for Apple in particular if it carries on.

    via China Orders Registration of App Stores – NYTimes.com

    Russia Requires Apple and Google to Remove LinkedIn From Local App Stores – The New York Times (Jan 6, 2017)

    This comes hot on the heels of the Chinese New York Times app story earlier in the week, and there’s a danger of this becoming a trend. Apple and Google both tend to comply with local laws when it comes to this kind of thing, and that’s certainly a reasonable defense. But if oppressive regimes start to use the major app stores as a way to block content they don’t like, Apple and Google are going to find themselves on the receiving end of attacks from lots of civil liberties groups.

    via Russia Requires Apple and Google to Remove LinkedIn From Local App Stores – The New York Times

    Apple Removes New York Times Apps From Its Store in China – The New York Times (Jan 4, 2017)

    This is the cost of doing business in China – a cost other companies have decided they’re not willing to bear. Apple has already had to shut down elements of iTunes in China, and now this. It’s not a great look for Apple in China, but this kind of thing is likely to continue to be a thorn in Apple’s side as it seeks to do business there. Striking a balance between avoiding censorship and doing just enough to stay in business there is tricky, and likely to offend quite a few people in the process.

    via Apple Removes New York Times Apps From Its Store in China – The New York Times