Connect with us

Business

Taiwan Suspects a Chinese-Linked Ship of Damaging an Internet Cable

Published

on

Taiwan Suspects a Chinese-Linked Ship of Damaging an Internet Cable

Taiwan is investigating whether a ship linked to China is responsible for damaging one of the undersea cables that connects Taiwan to the internet, the latest reminder of how vulnerable Taiwan’s critical infrastructure is to damage from China.

The incident comes as anxiety in Europe has risen over apparent acts of sabotage, including ones aimed at such undersea communication cables. Two fiber-optic cables under the Baltic Sea were severed in November, prompting officials from Sweden, Finland and Lithuania to halt a Chinese-flagged commercial ship in the area for weeks over its possible involvement.

In Taiwan, communications were quickly rerouted after the damage was detected, and there was no major outage. The island’s main telecommunications provider, Chunghwa Telecom, received a notification on Friday morning that the cable, known as the Trans-Pacific Express Cable, had been damaged. That cable also connects to South Korea, Japan, China and the United States.

That afternoon, Taiwan’s Coast Guard intercepted a cargo vessel off the northern city of Keelung, in an area near where half a dozen cables make landfall. The vessel was owned by a Hong Kong company and crewed by seven Chinese nationals, the Taiwan Coast Guard Administration said.

The damaged cable is one of more than a dozen that help keep Taiwan online. These fragile cables are susceptible to breakage by anchors dragged along the sea floor by the many ships in the busy waters around Taiwan.

Advertisement

Analysts and officials say that while it is difficult to prove whether damage to these cables is intentional, such an act would fit a pattern of intimidation and psychological warfare by China directed at weakening Taiwan’s defenses.

Taiwan said the cargo vessel it intercepted had registered under the flags of both Cameroon and Tanzania. “The possibility of a Chinese flag-of-convenience ship engaging in gray zone harassment cannot be ruled out,” the Coast Guard Administration said on Monday in a statement.

Such harassment, which inconveniences Taiwanese forces but stops short of overt confrontation, has a desensitizing effect over time, according to Yisuo Tzeng, a researcher at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a think tank funded by Taiwan’s defense ministry. That puts Taiwan at risk of being caught off guard in the event of a real conflict, Mr. Tzeng said.

Taiwan experiences near-daily incursions into its waters and airspace by the People’s Liberation Army. Last month, China sent nearly 90 naval and coast guard vessels into waters in the area, its largest such operation in almost three decades.

China has also deployed militarized fishing boats and its coast guard fleet in disputes around the South China Sea region, and stepped up patrols just a few miles off the shore of Taiwan’s outer islands, increasing the risk of dangerous confrontations.

Advertisement

Such harassment has been a “defining marker of Chinese coercion against Taiwan for decades, but over the last couple years has really stepped up,” said Gregory Poling, the director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

And in situations like this one and the recent damage to the cables under the Baltic Sea, it is difficult for the authorities to calibrate their response when a ship’s true identity is uncertain.

“Do you deploy a Coast Guard vessel every time there is an illegal sand dredger or, in this case, a ship that is registered to a flag of convenience and has Chinese ties damages a submarine cable?” Mr. Poling asked.

Ship tracking data and vessel records analyzed by The Times show that the ship may have been broadcasting its positions under a fake name.

Taiwan said the ship appeared to use two sets of Automatic Identification System equipment, which is used to broadcast a ship’s position. On Jan. 3, at the moment that Taiwan said the cable was damaged, a ship named Shun Xing 39 was reporting its AIS positions in the waters off Taiwan’s northeastern coast.

Advertisement

About nine hours later, at around 4:51 p.m. local time, Shun Xing 39 stopped transmitting location data. That was shortly after the time that the Taiwan Coast Guard said it had located the ship and requested that it return to waters outside of Keelung port for an investigation.

One minute later, and 50 feet away, a ship called Xing Shun 39, which had not reported a position since late December, began broadcasting a signal, according to William Conroy, a maritime analyst in Wildwood, Mo., with Semaphore Maritime Solutions, who analyzed AIS data on the ship-tracking platform Starboard.

In the ship-tracking database, both Xing Shun 39 and Shun Xing 39 identify themselves as cargo ships with a class A AIS transponder. Typically, a cargo ship equipped with this class of transponder would be large enough to require registration with the International Maritime Organization and obtain a unique identification number known as an IMO number. Xing Shun 39 has an IMO number, but Shun Xing 39 does not appear in the IMO database. This suggests “Xing Shun 39” is the ship’s real identity and “Shun Xing 39” is fake, according to Mr. Conroy.

The Taiwan Coast Guard has publicly identified the vessel as Shun Xing 39, and said the ship used two AIS systems.

Vessel and corporate records show that Jie Yang Trading Ltd, a Hong Kong-based company, took over as the owner of Xing Shun 39 in April 2024.

Advertisement

The waves were too large to board the cargo vessel to investigate further, the Taiwan Coast Guard Administration said. Taiwan is seeking help from South Korea because the crew of the cargo vessel said it was headed to that country, the administration said.

In 2023, the outlying Matsu Islands, within view of the Chinese coast, endured patchy internet for months after two undersea internet cables broke. These fiber optic cables that connect Taiwan to the internet suffered about 30 such breaks between 2017 and 2023.

The frequent breakages are a reminder that Taiwan’s communication infrastructure must be able to withstand a crisis.

To help ensure that Taiwan can stay online if cables fail, the government has been pursuing a backup, including building a network of low-Earth orbit satellites capable of beaming the internet to Earth from space. Crucially, officials in Taiwan are racing to build their system without the involvement of Elon Musk, whose rocket company, SpaceX, dominates the satellite internet industry, but whose deep business links in China have left them wary.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Mark Zuckerberg’s Political Evolution, From Apologies to No More Apologies

Published

on

Mark Zuckerberg’s Political Evolution, From Apologies to No More Apologies

In November 2016, as Facebook was being blamed for a torrent of fake news and conspiracy theories swirling around the first election of Donald J. Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of the social network, wrote an apologetic post.

In his message, Mr. Zuckerberg announced a series of steps he planned to take to grapple with false and misleading information on Facebook, such as working with fact-checkers.

“The bottom line is: we take misinformation seriously,” he wrote in a personal Facebook post. “There are many respected fact checking organizations,” he added, “and, while we have reached out to some, we plan to learn from many more.”

Eight years later, Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said.

It was the latest step in a transformation of Mr. Zuckerberg. In recent years, the chief executive, now 40, has stepped away from his mea culpa approach to problems on his social platforms. Fed up with what has seemed at times to be unceasing criticism of his company, he has told executives close to him that he wants to return to his original thinking on free speech, which involves a lighter hand in content moderation.

Advertisement

Mr. Zuckerberg has remolded Meta as he has made the shift. Gone is the CrowdTangle transparency tool, which allowed researchers, academics and journalists to monitor conspiracy theories and misinformation on Facebook. The company’s election integrity team, once trumpeted as a group of experts focused solely on issues around the vote, has been folded into a general integrity team.

Instead, Mr. Zuckerberg has promoted technology efforts at Meta, including its investments in the immersive world of the so-called metaverse and its focus on artificial intelligence.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s change has been visible on his social media. Photos of him uncomfortably clad in a suit and tie and testifying before Congress have been replaced by videos of him with longer hair and in gold chains, competing in extreme sports and sometimes hunting for his own food. Long, heavily lawyered Facebook posts about Meta’s commitment to democracy no longer appear. Instead, he has posted quips on Threads responding to celebrity athletes and videos showing the company’s newest A.I. initiatives.

“This shows how Mark Zuckerberg is feeling that society is more accepting of those libertarian and right-leaning viewpoints that he’s always had,” said Katie Harbath, chief executive of Anchor Change, a tech consulting firm, who previously worked at Facebook. “This is an evolved return to his political origins.”

Mr. Zuckerberg has long been a pragmatist who has gone where the political winds have blown. He has flip-flopped on how much political content should be shown to Facebook and Instagram users, previously saying social networks should be about fun, relatable content from family and friends but then on Tuesday saying Meta would show more personalized political content.

Advertisement

Mr. Zuckerberg has told executives close to him that he is comfortable with the new direction of his company. He sees his most recent steps as a return to his original thinking on free speech and free expression, with Meta limiting its monitoring and controlling of content, said two Meta executives who spoke with Mr. Zuckerberg in the last week.

Mr. Zuckerberg was never comfortable with the involvement of outside fact-checkers, academics or researchers in his company, one of the executives said. He now sees many of the steps taken after the 2016 election as a mistake, the two executives said.

“Fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a video on Tuesday about the end of the fact-checking program, echoing statements made by top Republicans over the years.

Meta declined to comment.

Those who have known Mr. Zuckerberg for decades describe him as a natural libertarian, who enjoyed reading books extolling free expression and the free market system after he dropped out of Harvard to start Facebook in 2004. As his company grew, so did pressure to become more responsive to complaints from world leaders and civil society groups that he was not doing enough to moderate content on his platform.

Advertisement

Crises including a genocide in Myanmar, in which Facebook was blamed for allowing hate speech to spread against the Muslim Rohingya people, forced Mr. Zuckerberg to expand moderation teams and define rules around speech on his social networks.

He was coached by people close to him, including Meta’s former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, to become more involved in politics. After the 2016 election, Mr. Zuckerberg embarked on a public campaign to clear his name and redeem his company. He held regular meetings with civic leaders and invited politicians to visit his company’s headquarters, rolled out transparency tools such as CrowdTangle and brought on fact-checkers.

In 2017, he announced that he was conducting a “listening tour” across the United States to “get a broader perspective” on how Americans used Facebook. The campaign-like photo opportunities with farmers and autoworkers led to speculation that he was running for political office.

Despite his efforts, Mr. Zuckerberg continued to be blamed for the misinformation and falsehoods that spread on Facebook and Instagram.

In October 2019, Mr. Zuckerberg began to push back. In an address at Georgetown University, he said Facebook had been founded to give people a voice.

Advertisement

“I’m here today because I believe we must continue to stand for free expression,” he said.

In 2021, when the Jan. 6 riot broke out at the U.S. Capitol after the presidential election, Meta was again held responsible for hosting speech that fomented the violence. Two weeks later, Mr. Zuckerberg told investors that the company was “considering steps” to reduce political content across Facebook.

His evolution since then has been steady. Executives who pushed Mr. Zuckerberg to involve himself directly in politics, including Ms. Sandberg, have left the company. Those closest to him now cheer his focus on his own interests, which include extreme sports and rapping for his wife, as well as promoting his company’s A.I. initiatives.

In a podcast interview in San Francisco that Mr. Zuckerberg recorded live in front of an audience of 6,000 in September, he spoke for nearly 90 minutes about his love of technology. He said he should have rejected accusations that his company was responsible for societal ills.

“I think that the political miscalculation was a 20-year mistake,” he said. He added that it could take another decade for him to move his company’s brand back to where he wanted it.

Advertisement

“We’ll get through it, and we’ll come out stronger,” Mr. Zuckerberg said.

Continue Reading

Business

Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

Published

on

Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking.  Here's what it means for you

Facebook parent company Meta Platforms said Tuesday that it’s ending a third-party fact-checking program in the United States, a controversial move that will change how the social media giant combats misinformation.

Instead, Meta said it would lean on its users to write “community notes” on potentially misleading posts. Meta’s move toward crowd-sourcing its content moderation mirrors an approach taken by X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.

The decision by Meta sparked criticism from fact-checkers and advocacy groups, some of whom accused Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg of trying to cozy up to President-elect Donald Trump. Trump has often lashed out at Facebook and other social media sites for what he has said are their biases against him and right-leaning points of view.

Zuckerberg, through Meta, is among a group of tech billionaires and companies who donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. This month, Meta also named Joel Kaplan, a prominent Republican lobbyist, as the new head of global policy. And Dana White, the chief executive of Ultimate Fighting Championship and a friend of Trump’s, is joining Meta’s board.

Content moderation on social media sites has become a political lightning rod with Republicans accusing Facebook and others of censoring conservative speech. Democrats, on the other hand, say these platforms aren’t doing enough to combat political misinformation and other harmful content.

Advertisement

Each day, more than 3 billion people use one of Meta’s services, which includes Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Here’s what you need to know about the decision:

How did Meta’s previous fact-checking program work?

Launched in 2016, Meta’s program included fact-checkers certified by the International Fact-Checking Network to identify and review potentially false information online. The Poynter Institute owns IFCN.

More than 90 organizations participate in Meta’s fact-checking program including Reuters, USA Today and PolitiFact. Through the service, publishers have helped fact-check content in more than 60 languages worldwide about a variety of topics including COVID-19, elections and climate change.

Advertisement

“We don’t think a private company like Meta should be deciding what’s true or false, which is exactly why we have a global network of fact-checking partners who independently review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp,” Meta said in a post about the program.

If a fact-checker rated a post as false, Meta notified the user and added a warning label with a link to an article debunking its claims. Meta also limited the visibility of the post on its site.

What is Meta changing?

Under the new program, Facebook, Threads and Instagram users will be able to sign up to write “community notes” under posts that are potentially misleading or false. Users from a diverse range of perspectives would then reach an agreement on whether content is false, Kaplan said in a blog post.

He pointed to how X handles community notes as a guide to how Meta would handle questionable content. At X, users who sign up to be able to add notes about the accuracy of a post can also rate whether other notes were helpful or unhelpful. X evaluates how users have rated notes in the past to determine whether they represent diverse perspectives.

Advertisement

“If people who typically disagree in their ratings agree that a given note is helpful, it’s probably a good indicator the note is helpful to people from different points of view,” X’s community notes guide said.

Meta said it’s also lifting restrictions around content about certain hot-button political topics including gender identity and immigration — a decision that LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD said would make it easier to target LGBTQ+ people, women, immigrants and other marginalized groups for harassment and abuse online.

Separate from its fact-checking program, Meta employs content moderators who review posts for violations of the company’s rules against hateful conduct, child exploitation and other offenses. Zuckerberg said the company would move the team that conducts “U.S. based content review” from California to Texas.

Why is Meta making this change?

It depends on whom you ask.

Advertisement

Zuckerberg and Kaplan said they’re trying to promote free expression while reducing the number of mistakes by moderators that result in users getting their content demoted or removed, or users being locked out of their accounts.

“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech,” Zuckerberg said in an Instagram video announcing the changes. “So we’re gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms.”

Under its old system, Meta pulled down millions of pieces of content every day in December, and it now estimates that 2 out of 10 of these actions might have been errors, Kaplan said in a blog post.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that the platform has to combat harmful content such as terrorism and child exploitation, but also accused governments and media outlets of pushing to censor more content because of motivations he described as “clearly political.”

Moving the content moderation teams to Texas, he said, will help build trust that their workers aren’t politically biased.

Advertisement

Advocacy groups, though, say tech billionaires like Zuckerberg are just forging more alliances with the Trump administration, which has the power to enact policies that could hinder their business growth.

Nora Benavidez, senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights at Free Press, said in a statement that content moderation “has never been a tool to repress free speech.”

“Meta’s new promise to scale back fact checking isn’t surprising — Zuckerberg is one of many billionaires who are cozying up to dangerous demagogues like Trump and pushing initiatives that favor their bottom lines at the expense of everything and everyone else,” she said in a statement.

Trump said in a news conference Tuesday that he thought Zuckerberg was “probably” responding to threats the president-elect had made to him in the past.

Trump has accused social media platforms such as Facebook, which temporarily suspended his accounts because of safety concerns after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, of censoring him. He has previously said he wants to change Section 230, a law that shields platforms from liability for user-generated content, so platforms only qualify for immunity if the companies “meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness and nondiscrimination.”

Advertisement

How have fact-checkers responded to the move?

Fact-checkers say that Meta’s move will make it harder for social media users to distinguish fact from fiction.

“This decision will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family,” said Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network.

She pushed back against allegations that fact-checkers have been politically biased, pointing out that they don’t remove or censor posts and they abide by a nonpartisan code of principles.

“It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters,” she said. “Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”

Advertisement

Times reporter Faith Pinho contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Business

Meta Drops Rules Protecting LGBTQ Community as Part of Content Moderation Overhaul

Published

on

Meta Drops Rules Protecting LGBTQ Community as Part of Content Moderation Overhaul

For years, social media companies made it a top priority to combat hate speech. But in recent months, they have waffled over how to tackle hateful online commentary, particularly when it is directed at L.G.B.T.Q. communities.

Meta on Tuesday said it would drop some of its rules protecting L.G.B.T.Q. people. The changes included allowing users to share “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”

The social media company, which owns Facebook and Instagram, will “get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse,” Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, said in a video.

The change comes amid broad political debate over transgender rights. At least 26 states have restricted gender-affirming care for minors, according to a tally by The New York Times. Tech companies have also faced years of criticism from conservatives, accusing the platforms of promoting liberal voices and stifling dissent.

The changes to Meta’s content policy follow similar ones at X, which recently rolled back rules against hate speech targeting transgender people and made the use of “cisgender” — a word used to describe people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth — a slur.

Advertisement

Meta will refocus its content moderation efforts on “illegal and high-severity violations,” its new global policy chief, Joel Kaplan, said in a blog post.

“It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Mr. Kaplan added.

Cecilia Kang contributed reporting.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending