Pressure on individuals outside China? Like with Assange?

Do you feel like Assange is the same as asking folks in Australia for DNA samples and implying bad things will happen to their family in China if they don't comply?

Could you provide a source?

Quick google search:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-31/chinese-government-ac...

Thanks. Still, harassing people with ties to extremist groups by asking them for their personal data isn't much worse than how the Western world handles this, which usually involves extradition and Guantanamo.

I don't see any reason to think that the situation limited to " ties to extremist groups" anymore than banning zoom users who talk about Tienanmen is considered "ties to extremist groups".

What's your opinion in China's motivation when it comes to actions like this? Sure, there's this theory that China simply hates Uighurs, but there are certain factors - such as some privileges Uighurs have, that most other Chinese don't - that make it hard to believe.

Also, I really wonder what's that Tienanmen ban thing all about, given that it's common knowledge in China and - understandably, imho - part of their school curriculum.

Influence on Uighurs outside their control that might otherwise lobby publicly for Uighurs inside China is an obvious benefit.

"I really wonder what's that Tienanmen ban thing all about, given that it's common knowledge in China "

China's control on what is discussed and how internally is no mystery, their desire to do that outside their borders should be no surprise.

Lobby for Uighurs? You'd have to assume the Chinese hadn't heard of Streisand Effect.

As for Tienanmen - okay, but this would require hiring people to follow every individual discussion, to see if the subject is being followed according to the official rules or not. It doesn't seem realistic.

> okay, but this would require hiring people to follow every individual discussion

The bans happened, Zoom said the request came from the Chinese government. How the Chinese government chose to do so really doesn't matter at that point does it? Same goes for the Streisand Effect... they're doing it none the less.

The Streisand Effect scenario only applies if you assume they are doing this to silence down Uighurs. It doesn't matter if they contacted those folks due to their involvement with religious extremist groups, which also matches the problems experienced by their family members back in China.

As for the bans - we don't know why they happened. Claims it's related to discussing Tienanmen are just that - claims.

" due to their involvement with religious extremist groups"

You keep saying this, I've no reason to assume that's the reason they contacted them.

"we don't know why they happened."

Would that apply to winnie the poo and similar things?

I'm don't get this hand waving around 'we don't' really know why'.... is that supposed to make it ok?

Sure you have no reason to believe the extremist thing, but then, the explanation you've proposed leads to the Streisand Effect. I find the former easier to believe.

As for "Winnie" - that's much easier, you can just grep for the phrase.

The "we don't know why" basically means we can't assume things, especially in this case, where there's a fundamental language barrier and ongoing propaganda war.