Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
China

Beijing Blocks Access To Clubhouse App After Surge in User Numbers (theguardian.com) 66

Chinese authorities have blocked domestic access to the audio-only social media app Clubhouse after it attracted untold numbers of Chinese people to uncensored, cross-border discussions on political and human rights subjects. From a report: The invitation-only US app, which only works on iPhones and was released in April 2020, allows users to listen in to discussions and interviews in quasi conference-call style online rooms. It suddenly became popular last week -- particularly in China, where people seized the opportunity to discuss taboo topics including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the persecution of Uighurs. On Monday evening Chinese users reported the platform was no longer available, ending a short-lived period of free political expression in a country where the government goes to extraordinary lengths to suppress it. The app's suppression had been predicted on the Twitter-like platform Weibo, where users were urged to "cherish such a short and open opportunity for dialogue." Users shared their Clubhouse discoveries, and commented on the rare chance for people in mainland China to openly and freely discuss politics and gender issues with their peers in Hong Kong and Taiwan. One user called it "the Renaissance of China." A related hashtag was viewed more than 50m times. But those conversations were soon also scrubbed from the internet, as well as the hashtag related to the blocking of Clubhouse, viewed at least 50,000 times before it was censored, according to reports.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beijing Blocks Access To Clubhouse App After Surge in User Numbers

Comments Filter:
  • Whether it is Communist leadership in China or liberals in America, you can count on Apple to tilt the playing field in their favor.
    • by nagora ( 177841 )

      Whether it is Communist leadership in China or liberals in America, you can count on Apple to tilt the playing field in their favor.

      By making that equivalence you've basically made it clear that you just don't want to hear from people who don't agree with you.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The number of communists in America is basically irrelevant. By equating every liberal in America with "communists", you're basically showing the whole world how binary, black-or-white, simplistic, primitive your intellect is.

      Clearly, your only knowledge of the world comes from what you've read and watched on your computer from your little echo chamber.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The number of white supremacists in America is basically irrelevant. By equating every conservative, republican, Christian and libertarian in America with "white supremacists", you're basically showing the whole world how binary, black-or-white, simplistic, primitive your intellect is.

        Clearly, your only knowledge of the world comes from what you've read and watched on your computer from your little echo chamber.

        • I'm willing to concede that those who equate every "conservative, Republican, Christian, and Libertarian in America" with "white supremacist" are as intellectually primitive as those who equate every liberal in America with "communist."

          Fortunately, at no point did OP make such a claim, so your strawman argument is irrelevant.

          • by deKernel ( 65640 )

            And if you don't see the relevance of the statement, then you are ill-equipped for this conversation.

            • Scroll up to this thread's top-level comment for a poster drawing an equivalence between American liberal and communists. Who's drawing such an equivalence between conservatives/Republicans/Christians/Libertarians and white supremacists?

              Other than the AC, no one. Hence "irrelevant strawman."

        • Watching people like you trying to pass a strawman as something actually clever is like watching a ten year old trying to sound all wise and mature. It's amusing, but also depressing.

          Tell me, where in my post did I draw an equivalence between conservative, republican, christian and libertarian with white supremacists ?

          You know what else I am not ? A fucking coward hiding behind an anonymous post. Have you noticed that the vast majority of Trump defenders on this site almost always seem to post anonymously ?

  • Left Wing Socials (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 )

    Do the exact same thing here.

    Don't like the speech... de-platform you.

    • Re:Left Wing Socials (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aristos Mazer ( 181252 ) on Monday February 08, 2021 @12:01PM (#61040314)

      There is a huge difference in both nature and scale between a private corp choosing not to carry some content and a national government choosing to repress some content. The former is the marketplace of ideas working exactly how it is supposed to work. The later is abrogation of free speech that prevents the marketplace from working. I am generally surprised that the political right in the USA isn't more supportive of corporate rights in this area since it is consistent with the small government and free market economics that right-wing usually espouses.

      • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday February 08, 2021 @12:25PM (#61040406)

        a private corp choosing not to carry some content

        A private corporation is a license granted by the government to do business while being insulated from unlimited liability. I.e. the consequences of the corporations actions. There are those who believe that the government cannot create an entity and endow it with powers which it does not itself possess.

        • The government does, in fact, have the power of absolute immunity from liability. It's called sovereign immunity. You cannot sue the government unless it agrees to be sued, such as Section 1983 suits where the government passed a specific law allowing you to sue it.
          • by PPH ( 736903 )

            sovereign immunity

            Not so much in a government with powers restricted or defined by a constitution. Absolute immunity [wikipedia.org] only applies if the government or official is acting within the scope of their duties. Duties defined by our Constitution. So there are in fact limits to the governments authority and immunity from prosecution as well as their ability to convey those to any entity that they might create.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        The right realizes that it's shrinking in influence due to changing demographics so they've given up all the principles they once held and taken a win-at-all-costs approach. As someone who leans conservative, at least economically, it's very sad to see. But it's bullshit and I will never support this far right crap, even for pragmatic reasons. The left can take its cancel culture and shove it, and the right can take its white supremacist filth and shove that too.
        • That sounds just like what a white supremacist would say.

          In all seriousness though, long live the heterodoxy. My sense is that you can still say things like this in MAGAstan, but it'll get you excommunicated from Wokeistan.

        • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
          cancel culture really isn't a left vs right thing. Conservatives have been cancelling people for decades.

          I agree it's stupid, though. People can make mistakes and learn and grow from them. Now those who continue to make the same mistakes.. no sympathy from me. I'm sure if we were able to look into everyone's past, we'd all have at least a few instances that would get us in hot water today.
          • by RobinH ( 124750 )
            No me, because I'm old enough that when I was a teenager doing stupid stuff the people around me weren't all pointing cell phones at me just waiting for me to screw up.
      • If the government wasn't standing with a sword of Damoclese hanging over the heads of these companies, demanding censorship of harrassing tweets (and remember: our political opponents' tweets are harrassing, wink wink!) of section 230 changes, or outright breakup, costing tens of billions of stock value loss (or hundreds!) in these teradollar corporations, you might have a point.

        As it stands, it is a violation of the First Amendment, by government.

      • The differentiation you make between private corporations and government here is in name only. If we had a free market, I would probably agree with you, but what we have is monopoly powers that are paying obeisance to a political regime in power by crushing any market competitor that would dare to capitalize on giving a voice to their political opponents. That's exactly what happens under fascism.
      • There is a huge difference in both nature and scale between a private corp choosing not to carry some content and a national government choosing to repress some content. The former is the marketplace of ideas working exactly how it is supposed to work.

        Trump lost all of his social media accounts and big news media refused to even air his full press conferences. This is just feudalism, it's the barons rising up against the kings not Free and Equal Rational Consumers(tm) acting freely in a marketplace.

        When th

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          That was the entire marketplace rejecting Trump. It wasn't a single actor forcing everyone's behavior... it was literally every actor all coming to the same conclusion: this is unacceptable. This wasn't a threat to democracy. That was democracy in action. Don't forget: at the time it happened, Trump was the president and Senate was in Republican hands. This wasn't a government move.

          • by inhuman_4 ( 1294516 ) on Monday February 08, 2021 @01:11PM (#61040630)

            It wasn't a single actor forcing everyone's behavior... it was literally every actor all coming to the same conclusion: this is unacceptable. This wasn't a threat to democracy. That was democracy in action.

            Yes every actor, except the ~40% of the electorate who voted for him. But then they're just the peasant class so they don't really count I guess.

            • The populace voted for him before he called for an assault on the capitol to overturn the legitimate election. A lot of minds changed in the wake of that violence. A lot of tech that had stood by him and given him a platform turned away after that.

      • What do you call it when the government sidesteps those pesky rights and has private companies do their bidding?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Do the exact same thing here.

      Don't like the speech... de-platform you.

      What do you think about Colin Kaepernick?

    • USA is learning a lot from China.

    • by stikves ( 127823 )

      As much as I like free speech it goes both ways.

      If your app is basically 4chan, of course platform companies will try to disassociate with you.

  • 50,000 views in a country with 1.4 billion people is smaller than the sound a gnats fart makes from 100,000 miles away.

  • ... what took them so long?

  • ...the company had previously disclosed it was perhaps subject to Chinese laws and regulations requiring network operators to “provide assistance and support in accordance with the law for public security and national security officials to protect national security or assist with criminal investigations”.

    The Chinese know that the next two years are their best chance to assert much firmer, control of Taiwan. I would think it will be done by infiltrating a large amount of security operators a
  • of the world.

    CN government - Why are you so afraid of the world?

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Working...