
The China Cultural Clash - hype7
https://stratechery.com/2019/the-china-cultural-clash/
======
ilamont
_Attempts by China to leverage market access into self-censorship by U.S.
companies should also be treated as trade violations that are subject to
retaliation._

Thank you, Ben, for this honest appraisal which involves sticking out your
neck and perhaps even harming your ability to travel to China or expand your
business.

Regarding this comment about Apple:

 _And then there is Apple: the company is deeply exposed to China both in
terms of sales and especially when it comes to manufacturing. The reality is
that, particularly when it comes to the latter, Apple doesn’t have anywhere
else to go._

That may be true of manufacturing now, but will it be true 5 years from now?
Surely Cook et al saw the writing on the wall years ago when it articulated
some of its core values around privacy. Conflict is inevitable, and the risk
associated with having all your manufacturing eggs in one basket is too great.
We saw the announcement of Apple's manufacturing initiative in Texas, and
there are other locations for electronics sourcing and assembly throughout
Asia. How much of Apple's supply chain could be relocated elsewhere?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Note that Cook became CEO because of his logistics and operations work in
China, so there is a lot of legacy to go on.

Apple assembles iPhones in Brazil and I believe India now, but these are
mostly for high tariff reasons. Much of what goes into an iPhone isn’t made in
china (and what is made in China can easily be made elsewhere), but they are
mostly made in east Asia, so having assembly done somewhere in the region.
Apple could always go to Taiwan (labor is more expensive, but they could maybe
rely on automation more) or Vietnam. However, whatever they would do would
cost them, a cost they could pay if needed but probably not one they want to
pay right now.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
But they don't own any factories, right? Wouldn't it destroy Foxconn and only
defer revenue a bit for Apple?

Maybe a few people who just gotta have the newest, latest, and greatest gadget
will switch to a Flagship android because they can't wait for the new iPhone.
But most people are pretty loyal / trapped into their mobile ecosystem.

I doubt it would materially affect Apple's market share or their revenue long-
term. Isn't the entire manufacturing cost of an iPhone $9? Even if it doubled,
their profit on iPhones would only drop by like 5%...

I think their latest pricing experiments have shown that there really is a
limit to how much people will pay for a new iPhone, and they've found it, so I
don't think they could pass the price onto the consumer. But it's only $10 on
a $900 phone...

~~~
zjaffee
The manufacturing cost of an iphone is closer to 400 dollars, the cost of
manufacturing doubling would be a huge hit to apple.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That is way above its assembly costs, you must be including components also
right?

------
nostromo
It's frustrating to see people say that we shouldn't fight Chinese economic
imperialism, mercantilism, and protectionism because we should support free
trade.

Free trade is a two way street. If a trading partner is engaging in unfair
practices then it's reasonable to support sanctions and tariffs and other
means to get them to stop, even if you're a free trade supporter.

In fact this is the whole premise of the WTO, which supports free trade. If
you don't engage in free trade, you get slapped with tariffs.

~~~
Merrill
Free trade works so long as you are the economic hegemon. After the Napoleonic
Wars, Britain was the strongest economic power and championed free trade until
the 1870s. Then German and French manufacturing, US and Argentinian
agriculture competed favorably with British manufacturers and landowners and
free trade was not so popular in the run up to WW I.

Similarly, after WW II, the US was dominant and free trade served us well.
However, as other nations develop their competitive advantages, free trade is
not so popular in the US.

~~~
gurumeditations
If that were true, the US would treat Europe as even bigger an enemy than
China.

~~~
boomboomsubban
The US has used groups like NATO and the G7 to ensure that no European power
would challenge US hegemony.

~~~
sangnoir
The UK has long[1] been seen as the America's cat's paw/poodle in the EU[2] -
which is why some in the EU are of the idea that Brexit's silver lining is the
end of British obstructionism.

1\. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/is-the-prime-minister-
a-p...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/is-the-prime-minister-a-partner-or-
a-poodle-1193543.html)

2\. [https://www.economist.com/bagehots-
notebook/2010/07/23/brita...](https://www.economist.com/bagehots-
notebook/2010/07/23/britain-americas-trojan-poodle-in-europe)

------
baby
I have an interesting take on this, from knowing a bit about Chinese culture
(lived there) and for having friends and coworkers who are Chinese.

Culture in China is about unity. If you look at Chinese history, and if you
watch Chinese movies, this is a recurrent theme. Unification through blood and
war. This is the goal and China will get stronger and more stable over time.
At what cost? Tiananmen, xinjiang, hk, the gfw, and so on... people know about
it but are willing to ignore them for the greater goal.

Why this shocks us so much, as non-mainlander, is that our Overton window is
much further left (the window of what is considered “normal” or “accepted”
public discourse). We have lived through slavery, camps, revolutions for human
rights. So there’s definitely a human asymmetry here, which makes it harder
for any of us to find common ground.

I don’t think there are much solutions here, and I think that in time Chinese
people will learn the same lessons we have learned.

I also think most of their distrust in western media is not because they
necessarily disagree with it, but because it doesn’t promote their greater
goal. And eventhough they know weibo, wechat, et al. Are heavily censored they
continue to obtain their news from there, never ending the cycle.

~~~
throwawy4trueth
The solution is quite simple: mind your own business. Let time and history to
tell. China never send army or CIA to overthrow other countries. If the other
side don't want to do the business that's fine. Westerner like to spread their
values, often with force.

~~~
plandis
“Mind your own business” the Chinese say while simultaneously getting upset
when an individual in their individual capacity says something on an American
website banned in China. Is irony not a thing in China?

~~~
throwawy4trueth
That's not valid argument. The ban is a response to an individual not minding
his business but China business. If the indificual say something about
himself, your are right. Can you get it?

~~~
swsieber
But the Chinese government only gets upset if some says something they don't
like. If they say something positive, there's no issue. And when they get
upset, they lash out.

Tyrant, bully, abusive - there are many terms for that sort of relationship.
Is it any wonder that someone is upset about it, and advocating that the U.S.
gets out of it?

~~~
jimclegg
Now we knows what this feels like...

We had a lot of sanction happy presidents and the American population barely
bat an eye-lid as millions died from the fallout.

Only thing lost in this case is money, so far.

------
justinzollars
Having recently traveled to China, returning home made me very thankful to
live in a Western Democracy. Many of my day to day problems are overstated,
and I think our appreciation for liberty is under appreciated.

~~~
munchbunny
_I think our appreciation for liberty is under appreciated._

Having grown up as a Chinese immigrant, I think this is true in ways that I
wish the more fervent Americans could appreciate.

By that I mean I wish Americans respected the more general principle of
enfranchisement more, but these days in practice that's just a straight up
criticism of the GOP and anyone who votes for them, due to their
gerrymandering and voter suppression practices.

------
scrumper
> The internet is an amoral force that reduces friction, not an inevitable
> force for good.

This is well said and something everyone in tech should remember. Unintended
consequence is a law with teeth.

~~~
nnq
Why would you care about "good", a relative notion that means different things
to different people, over _reduction of friction_ , a clearly beneficial thing
that accelerates technical and scientific progress?

If we could only "dissolve" all those parts of society and culture that are
mostly pure friction, and spin the wheels 100x faster to the future...

~~~
scrumper
So... I can't say "good" but you can say "beneficial."

Reduction of friction is not clearly beneficial! That's exactly the point.
Superficially it appears to be, but it absolutely isn't the case. Reducing
friction lets things happen faster. Both good things and bad things. And since
the meaning of 'good' depends on where you sit, you can't claim that it's
purely beneficial.

------
Merrill
Since diversity is a strength, it would seem that the ideal situation globally
is to have a diversity of economic, political and legal systems. If instead,
these systems around the globe tend towards similarity and strong coupling,
the result is likely to be fragility and instability. By having weakly coupled
diverse systems with well defined interfaces, the overall global system
becomes more robust and disturbances in one part are less likely to propagate
to the rest of the globe. Current tensions seem to be due to too tight
coupling and poorly defined protocols and interfaces.

~~~
drcode
You think totalitarian regimes like China and North Korea are OK, because
"diversity"?

~~~
Merrill
North Korea is totalitarian, and it will hopefully change to something
acceptable.

I think of the current regime in China as more an authoritarian single party
regime. We have tolerated or been allied with authoritarian single party
regimes in earlier decades such as Taiwan under the KMT, Japan under the early
LDP, and South Korea under Rhee.

China places a higher priority on enforcing social harmony than the US, but
China has a history where there have been multiple periods of severe social
disturbance causing 10s of millions of deaths, such as the Taiping Rebellion.
In actual practice most people have quite a lot of freedom on most subjects
most of the time since, "Heaven is high, and the Emperor is far away."

~~~
foogoloo
The Chinese Communist Party places a high priority on social harmony because
that’s what benefits them. Having freedom as long as no one notices you isn’t
freedom.

~~~
Merrill
In the US there is a faction that is extremely strong on "privacy rights".
This seem motivated by the idea that you are free to do as you please so long
as you can prevent others from knowing about it, rather than depending on
having strong rights to do as you please whether others know or not.

Strong privacy is the "security by obscurity" solution to being free.

~~~
drcode
So you're arguing China has strong privacy rights? How do "privacy rights"
matter if you don't have the freedom to have privacy?

~~~
m-p-3
Freedom is subjective to one's past experiences.

------
4gotunameagain
> There’s one rather glaring hole in this story of immediate outrage from
> Chinese fans over Morey’s tweet:

> Twitter is banned in China.

I didn't even realize until now. They are simply censoring (mainly)American
social media posts. On the internet.

~~~
godelski
Wikipedia is also banned. Most social media is banned. Though these sites are
generally allowed in HK. Many people also do use VPNs, but that's a different
topic.

~~~
ktln2
Not now - Chinese is turning Wikipedia into a censorship weapon. What you can
see on Wikipedia (in Chinese) are largely edited by Chinese government.

[1]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49921173](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49921173)

~~~
godelski
Let me clarify: Wikipedia is banned in Mainland China (what Westerners mean
when they say "China"). It is allowed in Hong Kong and Taiwan - which are
outside the great firewall. That doesn't mean they aren't censoring and
editing the Chinese language Wikipedia. They definitely are. Also consider
that many people from China (read: mainland China) are coming to the US and
the west for school. They tend to read the Chinese language versions of Wiki,
not the English ones.

------
curiousgal
Adobe recently blocked all Venzuelans because of an executive order.

Foreign companies are sanctionned by the US for dealing with Iranian entities
even if their countries have no issue with Iran. (Huawei's executive was even
arrested in Canada on behalf of the US for that).

My point is, why should we hold companies accountable for enforcing a certain
national policy when A, companies have always done awful things in the name of
their owners/shareholders and B, the US itself uses companies as a proxy for
its policies?

~~~
stebann
You forget the part where now all South-American economies are in crisis
thanks to US forcing pet leaders to replace "corrupt" ones. Now 50 % of
population in Argentina is poor (counting homeless too) thanks to US Foreign
Policy, but for them is OK to maintain the 10 % becoming nastily rich while
others pay the price.

~~~
aianus
Argentina is poor because they elect populist leaders who spend more money on
social programs than they collect in taxes and eventually default. Same as
Greece. It is entirely self-inflicted.

~~~
stebann
Not entirely self-inflicted. A) Argentina "populist" leaders didn't have to go
to the IMF and they provided a good climate for small to large enterprises
with the obvious limitations that country's market has. When the current
administration (conservative, neo-liberal) got in, Argentina didn't have debts
but was negotiating with foreigner speculators who took advantage during last
crisis at the end of 90's. So the current administration (those administration
you guys love) worsened all the conditions for enterprises and made impossible
to invest in any industry. They also let financial and venture capital to take
the country's destiny in their hands. Four years ago, defaulting was
unthinkable. USA Foreign Policy has much to do with it when they disturbed the
local political process. B) Social programs benefits a small part of
population, and they really need it. Actually, the actual administration is
spending even more than before on social programs, and they're not the
"elected populist leaders" you refer. While we can discuss if the incentives
are effective for producing a labor force (I think they fail miserably), we
can't discuss the basic rights of people to have something to eat until better
economic conditions are met. C) Taxes are the weakest part of the system, but
alone didn't hamper Argentina's capabilities to made business locally and
internationally. And you forget that their nature are not different from any
other places taxes in the world. US provided political and ideological support
for this complete mess and you should feel ashamed before talking about other
countries.

------
juanjmanfredi
I'm curious as to what happens if the NBA does in fact get banned from China.
I've always wondered whether, as the Chinese economy grows and living
standards rise, individuals would ever feel more entitled to individual
rights. Of course maybe this is just a western bias.

If the NBA was blocked, would passionate Chinese NBA fans (of which there are
many) fall in line? Or not?

~~~
knzhou
I'm always bemused to have to say this, but: nobody likes censorship because
they enjoy "falling in line". People everywhere support censorship exactly to
the degree that they agree with the censors.

You probably didn't shed a tear when Alex Jones was deplatformed, because he's
a scoundrel, and if this really did escalate to a full block of the NBA (which
seems unlikely), by that point many Chinese citizens would probably think the
same of the NBA.

~~~
LocalH
This. _So much_ this.

Deplatforming is deplatforming. If one supported the deplatforming of Alex
Jones, and doesn't also support China on this, then they are a _hypocrite_
engaging in severe cognitive dissonance.

Freedom of speech is not some "loophole" that allows people to say nasty
things. It's a _bulwark_ against authoritarianism. The ones who forget that
need to study world history when it comes to freedom of speech and expression.

~~~
juanjmanfredi
Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are
private companies and can deplatform whoever they want. In fact that is part
of their freedom of speech. This is different from government-enforced
silencing of speech, which is what is happening in China right now.

I feel no cognitive dissonance, but maybe you can explain more why I should.

~~~
mizzack
If you want to see that sort of cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy on display,
just go a few threads over and state:

> "Blizzard Entertainment is a private company and can deplatform whoever they
> want".

~~~
papreclip
They might not word it this way, but I think what people really mean is "X is
a private company and can deplatform whoever they want with the approval of
their users".

I haven't seen anyone saying Blizzard's actions should be illegal. The common
response seems to be "boycott", which Alex Jones' supporters were free to do
as well

------
smackay
It is rather interesting to see Stratechery talk about values when normally
the articles are about markets and capital. I don't how the latter, since they
are inherently amoral, can accommodate values either. As a result the argument
seemed a little forced. Surely if China is an important market for western
companies then the rules of that market apply. It is only to be expected that
in a global market there must a corresponding globalisation of the rules and
norms. Free speech might not be on that list.

I do have to take issue that this is a cultural problem. I don't regard the
Communist Party of China to be guardian of culture in China. The country did
rather well for thousands of years before it's existence and will no doubt do
well for thousands more after it's demise.

~~~
stebann
That is exactly what I try to point out, but "freedom" cowboys don't care
about other perspectives about Freedom. And they actually don't understand it
and then they forget every atrocity their country has committed and is
committing right now, including trying to overthrow legitimate governments and
destabilize other countries economies to gain competitive advantage. Moral and
Ethics, I don't see them anywhere.

~~~
kapuasuite
I like how you threw in the whataboutism at the end, as if the West has no
moral right to criticize China because of the long list of atrocities they’ve
committed. Well played.

Here’s the deal - China is a totalitarian state bent on reclaiming what they
see as their rightful place in the world. They will stomp on anyone they have
to, friend or enemy, real or imagined, foreign or domestic, to make that
happen.

At the same time, the rest of the world, including the West and its allies,
have the ability to force China to abide by international norms and the right
to defend themselves from China’s aggression.

You may think it hypocritical, but from where I’m sitting the US and its
allies have the moral high ground in this instance and no amount of bleating
about everyone’s historical crimes is going to distract everyone from the
realities of China’s ongoing atrocities against its own people, it’s Nine Dash
Line, it’s blatant political and economic attacks on the free world and its
disrespect for and undermining of centuries of international laws and norms.

------
samcheng
> _And then there is Apple: the company is deeply exposed to China both in
> terms of sales and especially when it comes to manufacturing. The reality is
> that, particularly when it comes to the latter, Apple doesn’t have anywhere
> else to go._

For what it's worth, I know of multiple Chinese companies that are themselves
moving manufacturing overseas, primarily to South East Asia. I'm not convinced
that the multinationals have nowhere else to go.

~~~
adventured
> I'm not convinced that the multinationals have nowhere else to go.

Samsung is making most of their phones outside of China. It's clear you can
push most multinational manufacturing back out of China. There are several
dozen countries to redistribute that manufacturing to. I've probably read 50
or 60 articles in the past year that touch on the varied types of companies
moving out of China, from bicycles to bathroom fixtures to clothing to tires.

The far bigger Apple issue, is that they don't want to lose the consumer side
of the Chinese market. It's trivial for the Chinese authorities to snap their
fingers and make Apple persona non grata in China. It wouldn't even take very
long, a short duration of total disruption would be enough to wipe out Apple's
market share. They'd never get it back, there are plenty of good domestic
alternatives.

For a company the size of Apple, losing half their position in China could
mean losing half a trillion dollars in revenue over the next ~20 years. Beyond
the hardware, China's extremely large consumer market is no doubt perceived to
be very important for Apple's services shift over time.

------
richardzyx
> Kunlun Tech had acquired Grindr without undergoing CFIUS review. TikTok
> similarly acquired Musical.ly without oversight and relaunched it as TikTok
> for the Western market; it is worth at least considering the possibility of
> a review given TikTok’s apparent willingness to censor content for Western
> audiences according to Chinese government wishes.

Musical.ly was a Shanghai-based company targeting the western market, once
considered as a case study for similar types of companies.

------
knzhou
The Chinese get pissed off at political statements Americans find innocuous.
Europeans are angry over the dominance of American tech companies which they
are unable to control. Americans are panicked at the very idea of anybody non-
Western being associated with any technology they use, as we saw with FaceApp
and 5G.

This was all inevitable, and it's going to lead to siloed-off, separate
internets for every region in the world. I always find it amusing and a bit
sad when people condemn the Great Firewall, and then immediately turn around
and demand their country get one too. Neutrality is impossible; no platform
can please everybody.

~~~
mlyle
I don't think people want a Great Firewall. I just don't want economic power
being concentrated by foreign states to suppress political speech here.

~~~
knzhou
This is exactly my point. You, an American citizen, call it "economic power
being concentrated by foreign states". But Chinese citizens call it "ordinary
people boycotting offensive speech". It's the NFL kneeling protests and
boycotts again, except divided by country rather than by red/blue within the
US. It's annoying to have people you don't know come in and tell you your
speech is offensive, and if you want that to stop, then you want siloed
national internets.

~~~
guelo
Nobody, including Chinese citizens thinks this is "ordinary people boycotting
offensive speech", this is government action.

~~~
knzhou
How do you know? I see literally zero direct evidence for this in the linked
post -- only that _some_ people in China responded. Not everybody in China is
working for the government.

When analogous statements are found offensive in the US, US citizens, US tech
companies, and the US media can act with astonishing speed and coordination to
stamp them out. That doesn't mean that the US government is directing all of
it.

~~~
ookblah
The Chinese consulate in Houston put out a statement condemning the tweet.

You have a track record of China using the heavy hand to dictate the messaging
of corporations and individual citizens.

No coordinated message in China goes through without the explicit or implicit
consent of the government, even if it starts "from the people". It's not hard
to make the connection here.

~~~
knzhou
> The Chinese consulate in Houston put out a statement condemning the tweet.

Okay, perhaps. But that could also be them jumping on a popular bandwagon.

I'm just raising this doubt because I've seen, many times on sites like this,
enormous panics over supposed Chinese government actions, which actually boil
down to totally innocuous actions from individuals. The most common cognitive
bias when the West discusses the East is to think of it as a giant collective
-- not being able to "tell them apart".

~~~
viscanti
> Okay, perhaps. But that could also be them jumping on a popular bandwagon.

How could there be a bandwagon when twitter is banned in China (so no one
could have ever seen the tweet), and immediately after the tween all Chinese
social media blocked any posts related to the Houston Rockets? There was zero
way for anyone in China to even know it was a thing or to be angry.

~~~
diego
Lots of people in China (more than you'd imagine) use VPNs. If you want to
verify this is true, ask anyone who's used Tinder in China.

------
UIZealot
It helps to know _a little bit_ about what's been going on in Hong Kong,
before you all line up and take your daily dump on China.

It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and
fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the
Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these
crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including
Taiwan and mainland China.

The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes
political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it
might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.

So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law
was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the
HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.

However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed
on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them
universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up
to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved
candidates, then voted on by a committee.

It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal
of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to
paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor
helpless people of HK.

What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant _violence and destruction_ from
these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens,
unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their _peaceful_ protests, but please
don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.

(EDIT: If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue
your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.)

~~~
throwaway_bad
This is unintentionally the clearest demonstration of the clash of cultural
values in the whole thread.

Between harmony and human rights, it's absolutely clear to a westerner which
one is more important.

From your tone, it is also absolutely clear which one you would choose.

> If anything I said is untrue, please correct me

It's possible to only say true things and still be biased. This is probably
the most common way of spinning a story for "fake news". Some major events I
would definitely include are:

\- The 2015 Causeway bay disappearances which justified the fear of
extradition:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances)

\- Carrie Lam doesn't actually have autonomy and needs confirmation from
beijing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOft2Y6mH_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOft2Y6mH_g)

\- Escalation of force, hiring triads to attack citizens, blinding journalist
with rubber bullets, shooting live ammo at students in the chest, etc etc.

There are a lot more I can add but halfway through I realize the details don't
really matter. The difference in cultural values will make the interpretation
of these events irreconcilable anyway.

To an individualist, the only fact that matters is that at least 2 million in
a city of 8 million want the right to their own destiny. To a collectivist,
the only fact that matters is that the government is building a more
harmonious society so the ends justify any means.

~~~
UIZealot
> Between harmony and human rights, it's absolutely clear to a westerner which
> one is more important.

What have been the human rights violations from the government, aside from
responses to protester violence?

Labeling yourself "human rights" does not automatically make you right.

> It's possible to only say true things and still be biased. This is probably
> the most common way of spinning a story for "fake news".

Certainly. And you are immune to biases and spinning "fake news" ... how?

> Escalation of force, hiring triads to attack citizens, blinding journalist
> with rubber bullets, shooting live ammo at students in the chest,

"triads"? "fake news" much?

What else from this list is anything but a response to protester violence? Or
do you think the policy should just stand still and take the beating?

> To an individualist,

Keep throwing labels around all you want, it doesn't make you right.

Your freedom to shine your laser light ends where another person's eyes begin.

~~~
throwaway_bad
I am not immune to fake news. I think that's why I appreciated your original
response so much. I wanted to see how others are interpreting the same events.

Human rights violation by china are well documented. You can look them up
yourself assuming you have access to an uncensored internet. I cited
disappearing people as the example that I thought was most relevant for the
extradition bill.

The triad attacks are definitely real (we are in the age of smartphones after
all): [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
china-49071502](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49071502)

I don't think you realize how much the difference in cultural values is making
it hard for us to communicate here. Westerners consider what you call
"violence and destruction" to be a fair price to pay to have rights
guaranteed. Fighting is necessarily ugly but shining laser in eyes is
laughably tamed compared to the lengths democratic societies have historically
gone to protect their freedoms.

I do understand that some people just want to go on with their daily lives and
ignore the atrocities going on in the background as long as it doesn't happen
to them. I am not even arguing that's necessarily wrong either, just very
different from western thought.

~~~
UIZealot
Likewise, I appreciate your honesty and candor.

> Human rights violation by china are well documented.

That may have been the case. But we are talking about human rights violations
by the Hong Kong government here, and I don't think you have a case here.

> The triad attacks are definitely real

We can certainly demand an independent investigation into this once the
violence and destruction stops.

> Westerners consider what you call "violence and destruction" to be a fair
> price to pay to have rights guaranteed.

I believe the bill was quickly suspended after initial _peaceful_ protests.
There's no reason to believe the bill wouldn't be withdrawn if peaceful
protests persisted. That's why I believe the violence has been unnecessary and
may have even been harmful to the cause.

FWIW, I oppose the bill and support the peaceful protests against the bill.

> shining laser in eyes is laughably tamed

Have you tried that on yourself? Maybe you'll have more empathy for the policy
if you had. It looks deceptively benign but is in fact incredibly aggressive.

> I do understand that some people just want to go on with their daily lives
> ... just very different from western thought.

I doubt it's very different in the west.

~~~
mercutio2
A few points:

A) It’s very difficult to distinguish false-flag violence from hooligans

B) Once violence starts, it’s hard to stop it, but that doesn’t mean that the
government should automatically get its way because a small minority of
hooligans/false flag operatives got involved

C) Protesting for universal suffrage from an uncontrolled slate of candidates
seems eminently reasonable from a western perspective; what do you think is
bad about this?

------
skmurphy
I supported Clinton's invitation of China into a more liberal trade
arrangement,but it has not worked out as anyone in the US had hoped.
Thompson's conclusion is an important insight: "Money, like tech, is amoral.
If we insist it matters most our own morals will inevitably disappear."

------
chromaton
How can we get Tim Cook to make a statement regarding democracy in Hong Kong?
Either he refuses, which would be supporting the brutal crackdowns, or he
forces China to act as they did like in the NBA case.

~~~
tanilama
Cook is a friend of Trump, just saying.

~~~
ceejayoz
Don't confuse "Cook is a friend of Trump" and "Cook is trying to stay out of
Trump's crosshairs".

He's donated to both sides of the aisle, including a fundraiser for Hillary
Clinton last election: [https://fortune.com/2016/08/24/apple-tim-cook-
fundraiser-cli...](https://fortune.com/2016/08/24/apple-tim-cook-fundraiser-
clinton/)

------
the_details_guy
It appears that the third screenshot doesn't use the characters 火箭, but some
other word?

~~~
ETHisso2017
火影，or naruto, so not surprising he's not seeing the rockets. Not sure if BT
will edit the article or not

~~~
monkbent
Screw up by me but point holds. Fixing.

~~~
theNJR
A wild monkbent appears!

------
check-in
> China took the first shots, and they took them a long time ago. For over a
> decade U.S. services companies have been unilaterally shut out of the China
> market, even as Chinese alternatives had full reign, running on servers
> built with U.S. components

But, the U.S. companies like this equation - don't they? It helps them
generate more profit to their shareholders and give them access to that scale
of manufacturing. This led to the growth of the US economy. Now, you have a
new player in the game who doesn't like to play by the old player's rules and
the old player doesn't like it.

~~~
Barrin92
Yes, and importantly the new players rules are only the old players rules of
the past. The 'American System' of economic development is essentially what's
playing out on the Chinese side now.

The US of course doesn't need to like it, but it seems a tad silly to expect
that a country that is very much still developing to act like a free-trading
developed nation.

------
zarro
I see lots of Anti-China sentiment. I would be very careful here into not
falling into their deliberate trap of making "The West" China's "Enemy".

China in its current totalitarian form needs an "Enemy" to survive, without
it, it has to deal with difficult internal questions which will force it to
adapt and change - and this what scares them.

Totalitarian governments rely on distraction and misdirection of the populace
in order to survive. Without it to use as ammunition to unify the people
against a commonly perceived "enemy", the very nature of its limiting rule
forces the populace to start questions to try and improve their own condition.
Questions like "freedom" and "censorship". Totalitarian governments are not
equipped to satisfy difficult questions like this and will either adapt or
crumble.

Thus the best way "oppose a government that is the sworn enemy of values you
regard as precious" is to allow it to face its internal discord without giving
it the "enemy" it so desperately needs as ammunition to use against you.

EDIT: There are many comments that I think are misguided attacking this
concept, here is rebuttal to them:

Proposition: If China wants to make the west an enemy, it will do so with or
without us by the total control it has over its populace.

Rebuttal: So the best counter plan is to help them in doing so?

Proposition: So the solution is don't speak out about real issues because you
don't want to piss off Chinese citizens and make them think you are the enemy?

Rebuttal: Obviously not, but rhetoric implying war or xenophobia is hardly the
answer either.

Proposition:Most totalitarian governments fail on the battlefield. Think of
Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the empires that fell during WW1, or the Axis powers
in WW2.

Rebuttal: Just because totalitarian regimes have fallen on the battlefield
before, does not mean they will do so in the future. Not only is this
proposition utterly foolish and dangerous but its not even remotely true in
the nuclear age.

Proposition: Even if you watch or read the heavily controlled Chinese media,
it's never about fighting anyone or pointing the finger at anyone.

Rebuttal: This is almost categorically untrue and uninformed. In fact, in
times of political tension anti-west and anti-Japanese sentiment in the
government controlled media is used almost without fail. No protests are
allowed, but anti-west and anti-japanese protests are manufactured by the
state.

Proposition:Should we allow economic coercion and suppression of political
speech in the US by a state power? Can we not speak out in favor of those
protesting in Hong Kong that were promised 50 years of "one country, two
systems"?

Rebuttal: Of course NOT! But we should act on the defensive, and prudently,
with our own best interests in mind.

Proposition:This theory has proved wrong. China has been welcomed into the WTO
over the last 20-30 years and it has not reformed. It is now extending it's
economic superpower into political and cultural power. It's not about making
an enemy, it's about limiting this unwanted influence.

Rebuttal: To say the theory has proved wrong is premature, China took
advantage of one sided trade agreements that created a competitive advantage
for itself, subsidized by us. Limitations of its political and cultural power
should be in the form of leveling out this competitive economic playing field,
and not escalation into xenophobia or coercion.

~~~
nostrademons
I upvoted you for a thought-provoking perspective, but I think you're wrong
historically. Most totalitarian governments fail on the battlefield, or they
fail when the charismatic leader dies and his heirs are not so charismatic.
Think of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the empires that fell during WW1, the Axis
powers in WW2, Libya post-Gaddafi, or Saddam Hussein. Totalitarianism seems to
be an effective way to rapidly modernize a population to take advantage of
already-discovered technological advances, and then to mobilize the population
for war. It fails heavily at actually _waging_ war, where the life-or-death
competition between powers leads to a rapidly shifting reality that
totalitarian governments cannot keep up with, because totalitarianism requires
a near-total distortion of reality in order to keep the ruling clique in
power. Additionally, liberal democracies often have a deeper bench of talent
and technological developments waiting in the wings; totalitarianism requires
the extermination of these institutions as potential threats to the regime,
but liberal democracy cultivates these institutions in times of peace and then
can draw on them in times of war. Witness how quickly the allies deployed
radar, sonar, codebreaking, convoy systems, fire control computers, mass
production, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons during WW2: almost all of
these inventions existed within Nazi Germany (some of them were discovered
there), but their widespread development was blocked by Hitler's disfavor or
inattention, and so they never got the resources they needed.

I suspect you're thinking specifically of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact
nations during the 90s. There's a conflating factor there though: _communism_
breaks up under internal pressures without an external enemy. (This is a
pattern also replicated within many Latin American countries, as well as
within smaller-scale communes within the United States.) Communism is one form
of totalitarianism, but it's not the only one, and it's not the one currently
practiced by China (which switched over to state capitalism in the 70s).

~~~
bigpumpkin
Genghis Khan was neither a totalitarian leader nor did he fail on
battlefields.

~~~
nostrademons
> or they fail when the charismatic leader dies and his heirs are not so
> charismatic.

As for totalitarianism - it's complicated, since totalitarianism in pre-modern
societies looked very different. He would generally allow people in captured
territories some degree of self-rule, as long as they sent the requisite taxes
to support his war machine and didn't threaten his rule. But that's not all
that different from the status of ordinary people in China: pay the requisite
taxes and don't threaten the ruling party and you have a fair amount of
latitude to go about your business unhindered. It's also very different from
the degree of freedoms we're used to in the U.S, where threatening the ruling
party is practically a national sport.

------
ETHisso2017
火箭, unlike the "Lakers", is a common Chinese word (rockets). Expecting it to
dominate the trending hashtag on a Chinese social media site is a stretch.

~~~
yorwba
Even worse, the search term in the image is "火影" (Naruto, EDIT: the series,
not the character; the Chinese name of the series refers to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naruto_characters#Hoka...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naruto_characters#Hokage)
).

No wonder they're getting results completely unrelated to basketball.

~~~
monkbent
This was a mistake, since fixed, but even then there are no basketball
references

~~~
yorwba
Yeah, now it's "Rocket Girls 101"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Girls_101](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Girls_101)

Probably censorship, but including "篮球" in the query would make it a lot more
obvious whether the Houston Rockets are suppressed intentionally or not.

------
icsllaf
>The truth is that the U.S. China relationship has been extremely one-sided
for a very long time now: China buys the hardware it needs, and keeps all of
the software opportunities for itself — and, of course, pursues software
opportunities abroad.

The US started off the game with a lot more technology, knowledge, and power
than the Chinese. I'm kind of iffy that developing nations should open their
markets entirely to the largest multinational corporations especially if that
means steamrolling the local companies. A lot of Chinese companies would not
have been able to start if they instantly got out marketed by large American
ones.

------
madiathomas
Anti-China propaganda machinery is in full force today. So many anti-China
propaganda articles in a technical news site. This isn't what I was expecting
when I joined Hacker News. I was expecting to see Hacker news, not this
rubbish that has littered the front page today. I am even ready to be removed
from this site today. I am not even Chinese. I have never visited China but I
am able to see anti-China bullshit that is happening on this site.

~~~
Aaronstotle
How is this anti China propaganda? These are legitimate complaints that
haven't been properly addressed nor called out for years.

~~~
madiathomas
One-sided complaints? When we point out millions of people which were murdered
by US, we are downvoted and suppressed because we are a minority on this US-
dominated website. I am seriously fed-up with the bullshit spread on this
site. You can remove some of us and continue to discuss rubbish pro-US drivel.
If there is a way to report users, please do me a favour by reporting my
account. I want to get out of this rubbish website today.

~~~
takamh
I feel the same way that the quality of discussion here has declined
significantly and even as an American I'm tired of politicizing everything in
a pro-US light. Do you have any recommendations for alternative sources of
tech news?

------
tiredwired
World superpowers and associated people should not take tweets so seriously.
People read too much meaning and emotion into throwaway comments.

~~~
Loughla
That just waves away the fact that Twitter and other places like it on the
internet are THE platforms for conversation and statements. It's seemingly a
statement that assumes internet based communication is secondary to real-life
communication. And that's just not the case in 2019.

~~~
confusedhnguy2
> ... for conversation and statements.

Statements, yes. Conversations, no. It's just a bunch of echo chambers, when
people occasionally come out of their favorite chamber they simply yell at
each other with their ears covered.

------
tareqak
One could argue that this moment in history being a moment to pause and
reflect. If corporations and their officers are forced to confront the
question "What is more important: money or values?" and start picking values,
then maybe other values like privacy and human rights will get picked along
with freedom of speech as part of movement to protect values.

------
oska
Just on the NBA angle: It seems quite bizarre to me that a very large country
like China follows a sports league in another country. I personally would
welcome the Chinese following their own sports leagues more. Yes, they are
often of a lesser standard currently but that will change as local support
builds.

------
acqq
From the about of the site:

> Stratechery is written by me, Ben Thompson. I am based in Taipei, Taiwan,
> and am fully supported by my work at Stratechery.

I think it's important to know the perspective of the author, being situated
in Taiwan:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan,_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan,_China)

"the People's Republic of China (PRC) ― which is widely recognized by the
international community as the legitimate representative of "China" ― does not
currently exercise jurisdiction over areas controlled by the Republic of China
(ROC)."

------
RocketSyntax
For a long time, they've taken a protectionist and appropriation approach to
all forms of business, not just software.

------
shalmanese
One thing you learn from spending time studying China is that the Chinese
state has an asymmetric advantage in much better understanding the US than the
US understands China and being very good at deliberately structuring their
systems and policies in a way that consistently exploits the weaknesses in how
Western liberal democracies are organized.

I think the much bigger story here is how China's state capitalism is being
used to probe structural weaknesses in Western free market capitalism. Under
free market capitalism, the private sector and the state are fundamentally
opposed. The government's proper role is to act as a guardian of the _system_
and establish the rules of play so that the "free market" can flourish and the
role of companies are to compete to the maximum extent inside the constraints
of regulation. State capitalism comes from a totally different set of first
principles, under state capitalism, the private sector is a collaborator with
the state and the work in concert to further the goals of the nation.
Companies are allowed to compete when it would be beneficial to the state that
they compete and forced to co-operate when it's beneficial to the state that
they co-operate. Both systems start from a very different set of first
principles and they each have their own pros and cons but China knows how to
exploit the cons of free market capitalism much better than the US knows how
to exploit the cons of state capitalism.

One structural weakness of free market capitalism is that it has intrinsic
difficulty dealing with co-ordination problems arising from prisoner's dilemma
situations. Take the recent "Taiwan, China" airline thing. China announces
that all airline websites must list the destination as "Taiwan, China" or risk
losing rights to access the Chinese air market. Now, this risk is a total
paper tiger, any sober minded analysis could demonstrate that China would be
hurt way more than losing flight volume than they would gain from words on a
webpage. If all US airlines stood up in unison and said they opposed the
change, China would rapidly back down, the whole "hurt feelings" stuff is just
window dressing for political negotiation. However, if all but one airline
caved, that airline would get all of China's flight volume, China would not be
meaningfully hurt but every other company would be damaged.

The problem is, there's no effective mechanism under free market capitalism to
do that. The "right" mechanism would be for the government to simply pass a
law saying all US airlines must not refer to Taiwan as Taiwan, China and China
would have immediately backed down. The problem is

a) The US is utterly incapable of passing legislation these days.

b) Even if it were capable, this would be something considered a massive
overreach by the state and would be dragged into lawsuits for years.

c) Absent legislation, such co-operation would be arguably even illegal as it
would run afoul of anti-trust as cartel like behavior.

So, as China predicted, you had airlines folding one by one over an utterly
trivial issue because the fundamental bedrock assumptions of free market
capitalism do not allow them to do otherwise.

The difference with the Houston Rockets case is that the NBA does exist as a
mechanism for there to be a unifying voice of the league. China initially
played this the same way it always does, by performing a surgical culling of
the Rockets specifically, they were expecting the rest of the league to be
cowed and force the Rockets to back down. What they didn't realize was that
professional sports in the US are run as a socialist collective and sports
leagues are one of the only areas of American life which are explicitly
sanctioned to run as a cartel. Thus, the NBA has the freedom to say fuck you
to China in a way that movie studios and airlines cannot because they realize
China needs the NBA more than the NBA needs China.

~~~
Loughla
>they realize China needs the NBA more than the NBA needs China.

I was with you right up until this point. How is that?

~~~
shalmanese
The NBA is enormously popular in China and an NBA blackout would be
catastrophically unpopular. Furthermore, it would be unpopular with precisely
the most damaging kind of people, the ones who are largely apolitical but just
want politics to not interfere with their daily enjoyments.

There's a common misconception in the West that because China is an
authoritarian state, it doesn't need to care about happiness of its citizens
which couldn't be further from the truth. The CCP's legitimacy derives from
the consent of the governed and the Chinese people know that.

~~~
wensi
I'd argue that the damages will only happen one way as people in China will
seek other ways to watch the NBA (which people have already been very
accustomed to anyways), but NBA will lose all sources of revenue from China.

------
mark_l_watson
I also have mostly been a supporter, at least in spirit, of China. I enjoyed
traveling there and I respect their tech abilities.

My support has changed, and I can’t help but think that this is about the ego
of Chinese leadership, since it seems like they are making some poor
decisions. Perhaps even stupid decisions.

I also wonder what the effect of President Trump has had in the poor decision
making process of Chinese leadership since Trump also makes a lot of bad
decisions and has lowered the bar on skill in diplomacy.

This is a sad situation since I really hope for lots of trade, travel between
countries, and respect for other countrys’ rights to their own culture and
autonomy.

~~~
supertiger
>I can’t help but think that this is about the ego of Chinese leadership

It is and isn't. I grew up in China and I think the Chinese government is
overacting to this NBA statement. If the Chinese fans decide to boycott NBA
that's their choice and rights, but the government should not ban NBA in
China.

At the same time, I am frustrated to see so much misconception and lack of
empathy in the discussions here. The territorial integrity of China has a very
important place in the minds of many Chinese citizens if not all given the
recent 100 years of Chinese history. HK is globally recognized as part of
China but yet we have seen all western media's efforts to spread anti-HK
police sentiment and turn a blind eye on the violent activities carried out by
so-called protestors.

I've lived in the US for over a decade. Before coming here, I had no idea how
sensitive racial comments are. Over time I learned about the history and never
made a racial joke in public or private occasions. It's not the best analogy,
but I want to point out that Morey's HK tweet is out of line and doesn't
deserve NBA's endorsement.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Simply not reporting on it as solution for police brutality, delegitimizing
the protestors, right after complaining about lack of empathy.

We'll be probably seeing more of that rather than less:
[http://arnogruen.net/the_need_to_punish_--
_article_by_arno_g...](http://arnogruen.net/the_need_to_punish_--
_article_by_arno_gruen.pdf)

~~~
supertiger
I am definitely not saying there absolutely is no police brutality, especially
when there are so many violent protestors. If HK police have the same protocol
as US police, many extreme violent protestors would have already faced a much
more serious consequence.

And I am certain there ARE lots of efforts to delegitimize the protestors.
However, it's also true that the vast majority of US media choose to not
report on the unimaginable violence activities carried out by many protestors
on daily basis.

A few friends of mine in HK (not trying to generalize it but a valid argument)
feel frustrated that they are the ones to suffer all the short and long term
consequences while the "friends of HK" western media would be more than ok to
watch HK burn in the fight for the true democracy that's so important and HK
never had under both UK or China's governence.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> especially when there are so many violent protestors

You're just doubling down on it. The protests were completely peaceful for
months, and even then police already were displaying wanton brutality. To
blame this on the victims is expected as it is invalid.

> If HK police have the same protocol as US police, many extreme violent
> protestors would have already faced a much more serious consequence.

For what, for singing?

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/ddmk54/police_cap...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/ddmk54/police_captured_dropping_a_rubbish_bin_from/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d1b4kg/hong_kong_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d1b4kg/hong_kong_police_throws_tear_gas_grenade_at/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dccy0s/hong_kong_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dccy0s/hong_kong_police_forcefully_pushes_bystander_over/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/ddllcl/statement_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/ddllcl/statement_from_a_teacher_regarding_the_incident/)

Just a bunch, there's hundreds more. And yes, I'm also are of violent excesses
of protesters, these do not ever justify what the cops are doing. And even
with all the issues US police has, this isn't even remotely in the same ball
park.

> while the "friends of HK" western media would be more than ok to watch HK
> burn

You're right now excusing police brutality, you don't get to point fingers
like that. Nobody wants to see HK burn, I want to government to react with
something OTHER than violence to what are perfectly reasonable demands, and I
want the supporters of said violence to stop with the sophistry, while
pretending they're the ones _against_ violence*, against HK being a depraved
place where the elderly and children get brutalized just because other people
have no backbone.

------
tpmx
This article frames this as the US vs China, but it's really been the "Western
world" vs China.

And the western world has been incredibly naive and uncoordinated when it
comes to dealing with China. We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal,
in some kind of idealistic hope that the Chinese would latch on to "western"
values of democracy etc just by trading with us.

Edit: World -> Western world.

~~~
mfer
The world vs China? The US, Canada, the EU, and Australia make up less than
20% of the worlds population. India, the many countries of Africa and South
and Central America are places I've not heard from on this. And, there is a
large population there.

Is it the world vs China or the parts of the world we typically listen to vs
China?

~~~
guelo
China is applying economic pressure across the world to get its way. If they
pull this shit on the US imagine what they can get away with with smaller
poorer countries.

~~~
mfer
Large businesses often have rules around single sourcing of anything. They
don't want that single source to cause them problems if something happens to
it. For example, even if they buy 90% of their servers from HPE they may still
get 10% from Dell to have multiple suppliers.

It would be wise for many organizations to take that idea and apply it to
countries of origin for their things. That way instability in a region doesn't
threaten things back home.

This doesn't help things like the NBA whose revenue model is based on bodies
and eyeballs. But, it can help some industries break control... as long as
they have goals other than to gain all the money.

------
ur-whale
Can hacker news be read from within China?

~~~
yorwba
Not since ≈66 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20599249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20599249)

------
asdf333
really amazing piece of writing. bravo. well written.

------
AFascistWorld
This is just inevitable, if it's not NBA, it could be any big company who gets
caught in it, execs can pretend it will be all good and surely do wish this
day comes as late as possible so they can make the most of it.

This is like many things in the current world, vicious cycles, the more
unsympathetic ordinary Chinese perceive outside China, the more they will
embrace the CCP and strongmen, the more powerful the party will be.

And solution seems don't exist. Xi said "You don't eat the meal then break the
wok", So there's only one question:

Who's next?

~~~
mcphage
> So there's only one question:

> Who's next?

Well, Blizzard, already. So more like, who's after that :-)

------
impatientduck
How much would it cost the US to source all of its products in countries other
than China? I imagine it would be expensive, but possible over something like
a 5 year span.

------
avocado4
I'm addition to trade and human rights-related issues we should also be
talking about the Great Firewall as a protectionist tool. China blocks &
throttles European / Western digital services but we allow their tech to be
sold here. That's not fair. WTO rules should be updated to address digital
censorship.

~~~
moltensodium
The WTO/World Bank is an arm of the US State Department.

The rules serve to further US diplomatic and corporate interests, not openness
or trade.

~~~
freeone3000
Okay, so then we should DEFINITELY use it here, to promote US values over
Chinese ones.

~~~
moltensodium
Ok. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page, this is about
nationalism and competition, not freedom or trade. Pretending like we're
opening the world up for everyone to become magical free millionaires just
makes us seem naive and dishonest.

------
barnesto
"Second, sometimes different cultures simply have fundamentally different
values."

Communism is not a culture. This isn't a

------
colorincorrect
counterpoint: anglo-sphere internet is very hostile towards right-winged
content, with the exception of a few special purpose "containment"-websites
and social media personalities. but these people are also pretty much ignored.
this is defacto censorship, or more accurately, a publication ban.

~~~
Loughla
counter-counterpoint: much right-winged content is associated with hate speech
and violence. Further, many users of websites such as this are young and tend
to skew more left of center, and therefore will gravitate toward that content
anyway.

~~~
chillacy
Something to think about:

> “We are strongly dissatisfied and we oppose Silver’s claim to support
> Morey’s right of free expression. We believe that any speech that challenges
> national sovereignty and social stability is not within the scope of freedom
> of speech,” CCTV said in its statement in Chinese, which was translated by
> CNBC.

Hate speech is off the table in the US because historically it's been used to
stoke ethnic tension in a diverse society, people get hurt and die, and breaks
social cohesion.

Is it fair to say that criticizing the government is off the table in China
because historically revolutions have caused so much death and destruction,
and breaks social cohesion?

~~~
xfs
You have a good analogy in that China has different systems of political
correctness. But it's not just fear of the consequences as to why criticizing
the government offends China.

First, criticism, or rather, speech welds actual power in China and can effect
real change in the power structure, unlike that in the West where freedom of
speech is like freedom of wild animals - free, but powerless. And second, the
CCP is actually totalitarian in the reverse sense that it is the total
responsibility of the CCP to run every aspect of the country, listen to all
the people, and solve all grievances and problems, because if they don't, they
lose legitimacy and heads will roll, starting from the highest place then
millions. This is coming from both politically Leninist vanguardism and
culturally the notion of the Mandate of Heaven.

Now we can argue this form of government lacks checks and balances and likely
produces extreme outcomes, but it can also be argued that it is truly held
accountable to the people to deliver what the people want in contrast to the
west where the government is merely responsible to the strongest lobbies.

------
ausjke
it's either China, or the ROW(rest of world) these days. the co-existence is
getting harder these days.

time to break up, on all fronts.

------
peter_retief
It is time to stand up for the people of Hong Kong without apology Stop
apologising to this brutal regime you cowards!

------
reilly3000
I think Western memory about the Opium Wars is a lot weaker than China's. They
have a moral defense against any accusation of economic imperialism. Indeed,
communism would have never taken hold if the British hadn't done such
devastating harm.

~~~
jcranmer
What you're arguing is that, since China was previously a victim, China is
incapable of being imperial. That's no comfort to countries which are staring
down a gauntlet of Western imperialism being replaced with Chinese
imperialism.

~~~
ben_jones
An enemy (eastern imperialism) of your enemy (western imperialism) is your
friend. China was a victim in the Opium wars and then again to Japan in the
1930s and 1940s. This is all important context that needs to be considered.

To be clear I don't support China or Eastern imperialism in (significantly)
Africa, the ME, or the US. But if you want to fight it you have to be
informed, history repeats itself.

~~~
reilly3000
Also to be clear I don't support China's activities or posture around the
world. I think they are building an empire, and its execution and culture are
antithetical to western values. I'm just saying that the West cannot claim a
moral high ground in how we've treated China, and in the US, Chinese
immigrants.

~~~
ben_jones
Oh I absolutely agree, there is also a rich irony in the United States
condemning financial imperialism when we literally wrote the entire playbook
for it in the 20th century.

------
TurkishPoptart
>TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned social network, instructs its moderators to
censor videos that mention Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, or the
banned religious group Falun Gong, according to leaked documents detailing the
site’s moderation guidelines. The documents, revealed by the Guardian for the
first time, lay out how ByteDance, the Beijing-headquartered technology
company that owns TikTok, is advancing Chinese foreign policy aims abroad
through the app.

>The revelations come amid rising suspicion that discussion of the Hong Kong
protests on TikTok is being censored for political reasons: a Washington Post
report earlier this month noted that a search on the site for the city-state
revealed “barely a hint of unrest in sight”.

Welp, Communism runs the world, if you didn't know...

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

