Previous 24 / 63 Next

China ARTICLE 19 search engine to Hong Kong, although China later blocked major Google services. 66 However, in 2018 it emerged that Google was working on developing a China-specific search app which would produce censored results. After public backlash, it dropped the idea.67 Meanwhile, China’s own tech sector is influential and rapidly growing, including tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu as well as a strong start-up culture.68 Chinese tech companies cooperate closely with the PRC government, and there have been recent crackdowns on tech companies deemed to be too powerful. Companies are required to host CCP committees, which have become increasingly assertive.69 State-owned entities have increasingly bought ‘golden shares’ in Chinese companies. These typically represent only 1% of shares but are accompanied by a right to a seat on the board of the company and/or veto rights over some key decisions.70 Overall, information transfer between China’s major tech companies and the government is ‘comprehensive and systematic’, meaning that they are vulnerable to pressure to share data with the government.71 Chinese tech companies generally score poorly on Ranking Digital Rights’ scorecard for how well they protect human rights.72 Search engine Baidu has at least adopted a human rights policy, and while this is a step in the right direction, it is unusual and the policy is weak, for example qualifying that users’ free speech rights will be protected in accordance with national laws and regulations rather than in accordance with international human rights norms.73 One of China’s most famous home-grown companies, ByteDance, hosts separate apps for its international and Chinese users (Tiktok and Douyin, respectively) in order to comply with domestic Chinese demands while trying to appease users abroad. TikTok now releases transparency reports and has said it will no longer use Chinese-based content moderators for overseas content. 74 Douyin, however, appears to cooperate fully with Chinese government demands. One anonymous former employee has indicated that Douyin has an extensive censorship operation, to which the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) ____________________________________________ 66 Google, A New Approach to China, Official Blog, 12 January 2010; M. Sheehen, How Google Took on China – and Lost, MIT Technology Review, 19 December 2018. 67 Amnesty International UK, Google: Drop Project Dragonfly, 18 May 2020; J. Su, Confirmed: Google Terminated Project Dragonfly, Its Censored Chinese Search Engine, Forbes, 19 July 2019. 68 L. Khalil, Digital Authoritarianism, China and COVID, Lowy Institute, 2 November 2022. 69 J. Horowitz, China to Send State Officials to 100 Private Firms including Alibaba, Reuters, 23 September 2019. 70 Reuters, Fretting about Data Security, China’s Government Expands Its Use of ‘Golden Shares’, 15 December 2021; P. Frater, Chinese Government Taking Stakes in China’s Top Video Streaming Platforms, Says Report, Variety, 13 January 2023. 71 Khalil, Digital Authoritarianism. 72 Ranking Digital Rights, The 2020 RDR Index, 2020. 73 Baidu, Baidu Releases Human Rights Policy, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 11 November 2020. 74 TikTok, Government Removal Requests Report, 12 May 2023; Wall Street Journal, TikTok to Stop Using China-Based Moderators to Monitor Overseas Content, 15 March 2020. 24

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Engaging tech for internet freedom in authoritarian countries

Report

Preview

Language

English

Topic

Information Operation
Internet Restrictions

Author(s)

Article 19

Date Published: Oct 5, 2024

Abstract: In this report, ARTICLE 19 reviews the human rights context and responsibilities of tech companies operating in 3 authoritarian countries in Asia, namely China, Myanmar, and Vietnam. It focuses on the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, and the manner in which authoritarian states directly or indirectly expect companies to assist them in censoring content, promoting propaganda, accessing user data, and engaging in surveillance. While these are undoubtedly highly challenging contexts, companies have not sufficiently prioritised protecting human rights in their policies and actions. States are the primary duty bearers under international human rights law, but companies also have human rights responsibilities, as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Even if domestic law or circumstances make it impossible for companies to fully meet their human rights responsibilities, they should take action so as to respect human rights standards to the greatest extent possible. Tech companies should not merely reference local law as an excuse for collaborating in rights violations. They should take steps such as those detailed in this report, like adopting appropriate policies, asking governments to justify content removal requests clearly and specifically, and reporting transparently on their compliance with government demands. For each country, we survey the country context and provide an overview of legal obligations which companies operate under that are problematic from the perspective of international human rights law and that may, as a result, put pressure on companies to become complicit in violations of the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. We then explore how Western tech companies operating in these countries, many of which have explicitly stated their commitment to respecting freedom of expression and privacy, have responded to these legal obligations and to other government expectations that they will cooperate in violations of these rights.

Link: source

Primary Documents

ETIF-Thematic-Report-12Sep-24.pdf
English
Download View

Myanmar Internet Project

Select target paragraph3

Engaging tech for internet freedom in authoritarian countries

Primary Documents

Notifications