Previous 25 / 63 Next

China ARTICLE 19 issues regular directives, sometimes at a rate of over 100 per day.75 Since 2021, a Chinese state-owned company has held a golden share in the subsidiary which holds Douyin’s licence. 76 Ranking Digital Rights, after attempting to engage with both companies, concluded that ByteDance appears to have a ‘hybrid model for handling public criticism’, with a Beijing office focused on China and the US and Singapore offices handling TikTokrelated matters, although the ‘extent to which one informs the other remains unclear’.77 Western tech companies which remain in China may increasingly pursue a strategy similar to that of ByteDance. As the following case studies show, however, Chinese operations cannot always be neatly separated from international ones. In addition, acceding to Chinese demands raises difficult questions for Western companies with a claimed commitment to respect human rights. Case study: Apple in China Apple is one of the few major Western tech companies which maintains a significant presence in China, alongside Microsoft. China is important to Apple in terms of both manufacturing (Apple assembles most of its products in China) and revenues (in the first quarter of 2023, Apple’s revenue from China was almost USD 24 billion, only slightly less than its revenue from the whole of Europe).78 Apple’s Human Rights Policy commits to an approach ‘based on the UN Guiding Principles for Human Rights’, including following the ‘higher standard’ where national law and international human rights standards differ and, if they are in conflict, respecting national law while ‘seeking to respect’ human rights principles.79 In practice, although Apple has shown signs of attempting to push back on some Chinese requirements, it typically ultimately complies, citing Chinese law.80 Apple’s history of removing apps from its app store showcases this approach. China has long required all websites in China to apply for an Internet Content Provider Filing Number. In 2016, it required online games to obtain this licence as well. Apple managed to delay implementation of this requirement, which was enforced by Android stores owned by Chinese companies, apparently by exploiting some loopholes in the rules. However, in 2020 ____________________________________________ S. Lu, I Helped Build ByteDance’s Censorship Machine, Machine Learning Times, 18 February 2021. Y. Yang and B. Goh, Beijing Took Stake and Board Seat in Key ByteDance Domestic Entity This Year, Reuters, 17 August 2021. 77 J. Zhang, Why Won’t Chinese Companies Talk to Us? It’s Complicated, Ranking Digital Rights, 2022. 78 F. Laricchia, Revenue of Apple by Geographical Region from the First Quarter of 2012 to 3rd Quarter 2023, Statista, 17 May 2024. 79 Apple, Our Commitment to Human Rights, 2020. 80 For more on Apple’s actions in China, see M. Caster, Blog: Apple Says It Cares about Digital Rights. Unless You’re in China, ARTICLE 19, 13 July 2021. 75 76 25

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