For current political commentary, see the daily political notes.
Zoom is unjust, first of all, because it requires users to run a nonfree client program. Using a nonfree program puts you under the power of its owner — in this case, Zoom. That power includes the power to make the program mistreat users and restrict users.
In the case of the Zoom program, that power stops users from adapting the program to use some other server instead of Zoom's server. Zoom's server mistreats users in various ways.
Zoom claimed that the discussion was illegal. The article explains why that is not so; the protection of freedom of association and freedom of speech under the US Constitution are so broad and firm that "so and so is a terrorist," even if true, cannot justify censoring the meeting.
However, Zoom went beyond citing a putative censorship interpretation of those laws. It asserted that its "terms of service" gave it the power to dictate what topics the university could discuss.
It is intolerable for a company to have veto power over what topics universities can cover in remote discussions. The side issue of how it would use that power, which topics the company wishes to censor, must not distract us from the wrong of putting the company in charge.
Universities should cancel their contracts with Zoom rather than tolerate this censorship.
Those actions bespeak an attitude towards users: treat them as prey. No matter what the company might promise not to do, with that attitude it will look for some other nasty thing to do to users.
The article is shocked that it does this even for users that don't have Facebook accounts, but is it acceptable to do this for users that do have Facebook accounts?
Zoom is developing geographically-fenced account blockage so as to satisfy repressive governments such as China.