Slashdot Mirror
Apple Music Caught Censoring Pro-Democracy Music In China (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Chinese journalists and netizens recently found that Apple Music's Chinese streaming service censored a song by Hong Kong singer Jacky Cheung that references the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests, an extremely politically sensitive topic for the Chinese Communist Party. The incident's 30th anniversary is coming up in June. Sophie Richardson, the China Director at Human Rights Watch, called the reported move "spectacularly craven." The Tiananmen protests are emblematic of a larger pro-democracy movement in China that was snuffed out by the Beijing government. Thousands of protesters were killed, but the exact numbers have themselves been censored by Chinese government officials.
Apple Music has also reportedly censored Anthony Wong and Denise Ho, two pro-democracy singers. After being noticed by Chinese netizens, the removals were reported by the Hong Kong Free Press and The Stand, two Hong Kong-based news outlets. Taiwan News also reported the censorship of Cheung's "Ren Jian Dao." The music remains available on Apple Music's North American products. "By removing a song referring the Tiananmen Massacre, @apple is actively participating in the Chinese Communist Party's agenda of scrubbing the colossal violations it has committed against the Chinese people from collective memory and rewriting history," tweeted Yaqiu Wang, a Chinese researcher with Human Rights Watch.
Apple Music has also reportedly censored Anthony Wong and Denise Ho, two pro-democracy singers. After being noticed by Chinese netizens, the removals were reported by the Hong Kong Free Press and The Stand, two Hong Kong-based news outlets. Taiwan News also reported the censorship of Cheung's "Ren Jian Dao." The music remains available on Apple Music's North American products. "By removing a song referring the Tiananmen Massacre, @apple is actively participating in the Chinese Communist Party's agenda of scrubbing the colossal violations it has committed against the Chinese people from collective memory and rewriting history," tweeted Yaqiu Wang, a Chinese researcher with Human Rights Watch.
Nope, the left is the censorship movement.
When you can make your point without name calling and using racial or ethnic slurs, I might be inclined to support at least your right to speak. If you can't do that, then nothing you say has value.
When the points you make are not supportable by good data, people are inclined to filter you out because who cares what you say based on things you either made up or are just spreading around because your friend said it. If you have a valid argument that is being censored, make your case. Everything you posted here sounds like either pure bullshit, or highly political equivocations that if I weren't really bored right now, I would just ignore.
I like the "both sides are equally bad" arguments from liberals. Its them finally admitting liberals are shit and they know it. They use the "both sides are equally bad" to justify them staying liberal even thought they know it is shit.
Let's not talk about generalities then, go on to specifics.
Other great liberal positions:
Support KKK member as VA gov
Support serial rapist as VA lt. gov
I don't think it has been proven he is, or was in the KKK, just that he appeared that way in a play or something. I think his political career might, as a result, be limited from this point forward. However this wasn't known when he was elected.
Lt. Gov may also have a very limited future if the charges are true, again, not a known thing. It's bizarre to point this out as proof of liberal hypocrisy, I'm fairly certain if these were known beforehand, the candidates would not have even been on the ballot.
Support killing live born babies and calling it abortion
Reference? This sounds absurd.
Support illegals killing US citizens and protect them from consequences like jail or deportation in "sanctuary cities"
This sounds hyperbolic. Sanctuary cities aren't for harboring known criminals, and protection from deportation from an agenda standpoint extends only to resident illegal aliens who are otherwise not criminals.
There may be incidences of things not working that way, but that's not the talking point, you're either making that up or distorting the truth for some other purpose, and yes, people are going to ignore you or filter you out.
Fight against reducing taxes/regulation that has helped minorities get jobs or paid more
This is a highly political statement. You need to break it into distinct facts. The problem is that when you do, the evidence is not going to clearly support your thesis. The notion that xyz bill is good for, or bad for, some audience is usually complete bullshit no matter who argues it. Once you go through them, it becomes clear who the beneficiary is, it's almost never about the middle or lower classes.
Either way your statement on its own is worthless. I wouldn't print it.
Lie for 2 years about Russian collusion despite them knowing there was no evidence because they can't argue against Trump policy on merits
Russian collusion is a proven fact, there is no argument about this topic. There are good reasons they did not want Hillary to win, and there's no doubt the Trump presidency has held favorable policies towards Russia.
What is unproven is that Trump directly colluded, was at all aware of it, or that his policies towards Russia are at all related to this.
Attempt to remove meritocracy and raise people based on identity politics, then call themselves "Native American" to take advantage so they don't have to work hard
This is where you start to get censored. You are mixing ideas up and confusing them to make a bizarre point.
Meritocracy is a very dubious system even without mixing in affirmative action or identity politics. Competition, in general, as a form of producing optimal results is not in all or even most cases ideal. Competition without rules and without a referee tends to be destructive and counter-produ