Exploring the Coronavirus Crisis
THE EVOLUTION OF ZOOM AS A COMMUNICATION PLATFORM DURING THE PANDEMIC: AT A RATE OF KNOTS By Jaspal Kaur Sadhu Singh Readers may be familiar with the idiom “at a rate of knots”. This aptly describes the pace in which a video conferencing platform evolved into a vital tool of expression,communication, and to China, a tool for dissidence and assembly. When we have truly emerged victorious in managing the pandemic and when we have reverted to the “old” normal, if ever such a time will ensue, we will reminisce about the pandemic as the ubiquitous age of Zoom. As I write this, a new ailment has been discovered – Zoom fatigue, and in the context of platform governance – Zoom censorship, since in a manner of speaking, Zoom’s evolution from a video conferencing platform into a lifeline for the continued survival of businesses, educational institutions, and communities during the pandemic has been phenomenal. With an astronomical spike in users and its domination as a video-chat app, the effusiveness turned to disdain when Zoom blocked three accounts of activists in the US and Hong Kong on the back of requests made by China. The accunts were to facilitate the commemoration of the 4th June 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown anniversary. Although the accounts were restored, the action on the part of Zoom did not go unnoticed. With claims that it was merely complying with local laws, the move has highlighted the struggle between communication platforms and governments in balancing countervailing interests of free speech and state control of opposing voices. Zoom rather swiftly paid the price of growing into a global communication giant beyond its familiar experience of being merely a video conferencing platform by transforming into a medium for assembly and speech. To ensure that it continues to respect national laws, it introduced a blocking feature based on geographical location. China and tyrannical states will be pleased to hear this news in order to silence dissent, discourse and assembly. It is undeniable, as Zoom itself claims, that it is not in the business of changing national laws of states that oppose free speech. Whilst Zoom may take its comforts where it can, it cannot ignore the fact that this will not be the first time it will have to decide which government it will submit to and in response, the stentorian vitriol it will attract for doing so. The latter resulted in Zoom dovetailing, aligning itself with the position taken by other communication platforms to pause the processing of data requests for user information made by the Hong Kong SAR following the enactment and implementation of the controversial security law in July 2020, claiming that it “supports the free and open exchange of thoughts and ideas”. In comparison to other platforms, particularly social media and messaging platforms owned by tech giants such as Google, Microsoft and Facebook, Zoom is a neophyte to platform governance. Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp and other content platforms has evidenced the rise of these communication platforms acting as tools for freedoms, representing the Fifth Estate, and acting as platforms for democratic discourse. This is particularly seen in terms of how citizens are engaging with each other and the world in the realm of socio-political discourse. The initial euphoria surrounding these platforms as advocates of freedom of expression and speech for individuals, communities, and civil society has been replaced with dysphoria of the hegemony these platforms possess in gatekeeping content and speech.
29
