Explicitly difficult to serve both China and US interests without pissing off one side or the other (or both). Zoom clearly built a system based on an MVP idea, not imagining that security and being able to block internationally was important, yet it is. Having worked for a bit on a game that had to have Chinese government restrictions in it, I know how hard it is to make their government happy. Even worse is it can change at any time. Zoom should have had someone there who had worked in a similar type of Chinese environment; perhaps they did and no one listened.
Note: I couldn't fit the entire title in HN's title character limit, so replaced it with what it is.<p>Original title:<p>Senator Hawley to Zoom: “Pick A Side: American Principles and Free-Speech, or Short-Term Global Profits and Censorship”
Kinda funny that it's ok for zoom to become a platform for US to monitor it's own civilians but then complain that it's cooperating with Chinese law.
Seems to me senator wants zoom to pick sides alright, but it has nothing to do with values or principles
Have there been any info shared by Zoom explicitly about this decision?<p>And are there any HNers who work at Zoom, or know someone who works at Zoom, who can speak to how this situation is perceived internally?
It's unreasonable to expect any single company to act alone in this. Some pundit (Scott Galloway?) recently made the point that USA flag corporations need the US Government to make this law. I'd be fine if FAANG et al presented model legislation.
Senator Hawley also introduced legislation that could be used to block efforts to implement end-to-end encryption, so maybe this is more about American nationalism than American Principles.<p>"Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has slammed the bill as a 'Trojan horse to give Attorney General Barr and Donald Trump the power to control online speech and require government access to every aspect of Americans' lives.'" [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/487372-bill-to-protect-children-online-ensnared-in-encryption-fight" rel="nofollow">https://thehill.com/policy/technology/487372-bill-to-protect...</a>
[2] <a href="https://morningconsult.com/opinions/a-backdoor-attempt-to-require-backdoors-to-encryption/" rel="nofollow">https://morningconsult.com/opinions/a-backdoor-attempt-to-re...</a>
Is he going to be writing a similar letter to Apple?<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-icloud-accounts-government-privacy-speed" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-ic...</a><p><a href="https://sneak.berlin/20200604/if-zoom-is-wrong-so-is-apple/" rel="nofollow">https://sneak.berlin/20200604/if-zoom-is-wrong-so-is-apple/</a>
I just don't understand how US government officials can criticize private companies for kowtowing to China because of its importance in the world, when the US government unequivocally does the same thing every day to a much greater degree.
Suppose Zoom exits China (1.39B potential users) in response.
This would almost certainly constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.<p>Censorship is legal. Failing to act in the best interest of shareholders is not.<p>Perhaps legislators should stick to writing laws?