If I were Tim Cook I'd be real worried about being shut out of my own supply chain right about now.
You're not wrong, but if people see that China is willing to shutdown someone as big as Apple, then they'll know that everyone else (who is probably smaller) stand no chance at all. People may start re-evaluating the (economic / supply-chain) risks they're will to take at that point.
In any case, threatening to shut Apple down wouldn’t be a message that you can’t do business in China, just that everybody, no matter how big, needs to toe the line. Do that, and you won’t have any problems.
And maybe you're fine with that today. But once you've ceded that ground, what happens when they move the line?
Because they always move the line.
- Mandatory state written malware for phones and computers,
- "AI" for tracking people in public, at schools and businesses
- Prevalent speed and crosswalk cameras to enforce traffic laws that their own police force fails to write tickets for.
It'd basically undermine the entire economic model that has led to China's rise out of poverty over the past 30-40 years.
And Apple is such a high profile company that it would likely cause an international incident.
That's an overstatement in my opinion. Can you provide an example where a high profile (tech) company caused an international incident?
Could be the case for companies with a national-security profile like energy or food industry, but the Chinese can live without iPhones and Apple, while feeling the bump, will move on.
If this extremely unlikely event happened the US government isn't going to ignore it.
As I recall, buying local brands instead was framed as patriotism.
The milestone being Note 7 explosion, they refused to offer the same refund package that they offered to the world outside China, and actually accusing some users microven the phone for fraud...
And it blows up. No one wants to be treat as idiots.
Didn't Apple start ramping up iPhone production in India recently? I agree that China is likely to retaliate but I imagine whatever decision making process there was for approving this HK app involved plenty of lawyers and analysis of potential fallout.
Apple is also paying lip service to "manufacturing in the US" by manufacturing the low volume, high margin Mac Pros.
Not meant to be a value judgement, knowing how to placate politicians is necessary when you operate at scale.
My understanding is that the Indian built phones were destined for the EU market which isn't engaged in a trade war with India or China.
The Chinese value stability, and that big of a dislocation would have a negative impact on their stability.
I’m sure they can pressure them, but extreme measures would be reserved for cases where a company has crossed a line that cannot be in-crossed.
Why not already do it instead of taking the risk allowing Western companies undermining their state ideology? Does Apple transfer technology to them and they needed that?
I don’t see them easily recovering, in the PR sense after kicking Apple out. They are already in the defensive posture with HK protests, which they saw get out of hand. Concentration camps for Muslim minorities is a terrible PR disaster. If anything Apple is in a good position to squeeze more concessions and handouts out of them at this point. Even, say make a publicity stunt about opening a factory in Vietnam or moving it back to US.
The CCP isn't going to compromise on its core authoritarian and nationalist values over a piddling concern about the unemployment caused by one Western company leaving. Apple's not that important, and my guess is the problems caused by the trade war dwarf any effect Apple could cause.
Also, I doubt they like Apple much anyway, and they would probably welcome the disruption to Apple that it would experience during a pullout. Might create opportunities for Huawei or Oppo.
With that said, is that enough for China to care at all? a little? a lot? Meaning, I wouldn't be surprised if China would forgo plenty of jobs from Western companies as their economy matures. Especially if China fully boycotted Apple, I doubt many other US Companies would respond at all
Many of those companies are showing themselves to be spineless right now
Edit: according to Wiki, the US DoD is the largest employer in the world at 2.1M employees.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers
They'd seize the factories and continue production, at least for the medium term. It makes no sense economically, but it keeps Xi in power.
To Beijing, the factories are valuable for (a) IP and (b) jobs. Apple walking deprives China of (a), but not (b), not in the short term.
In the near-term, expropriation would stave off job losses. (In the cities, amidst highly-skilled workers no less.) In the medium term, production lines could be adapted to make non-bricked products.
Long story short, the threat of massive job losses to China is minimal--Apple has limited leverage over Beijing.
They wouldn't produce iPhones without the chips. They'd just keep running the lines. Apple has limited leverage in threatening to walk away from China.
Either way, 4.8 million people + friends/family, being angry is not a small number. China's population is ~1.3 billion according to CIA world fact book. So it's certainly less than 1% of the population, but not insignificant.
The shutdown of Samsung’s last China phone factory comes after it cut production at the plant in the southern city of Huizhou in June and suspended another factory late last year, underscoring stiff competition in the country.
The South Korean tech giant’s ceased phone production in China follows other manufacturers shifting production from China due to rising labor costs and the economic slowdown.
First group doesn't really have a choice and the second group has no interest in an iPhone.
Have you ever thought that people might actually prefer it’s functionality?
I quite like the iPhone and I've considered switching on the basis that it seems to have a better security model.
These days I just keep quiet on the topic and organise my tech life to the best of mine and my family's convenience. And the Apple ecosystem is so far unbeaten in that regard.
Being able to use my phone like a USB stick/manage music and audio books and things is a huge point in Android's favour for example.
>“Providing a gateway for ‘toxic apps’ is hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, twisting the facts of Hong Kong affairs, and against the views and principles of the Chinese people,”
It's a way to say something is bad without saying anything about it.
Toxic is subtext that directly speaks to people (Chinese) wondering "what should I do?" => don't use it, don't even approach it or look at it (it's toxic).
It's idiomatic and quite explicit, in subtext, in this context (Chinese gov stuff).
If looking weak to Westerners was ever on CCP's priority list, it couldn't have been anywhere high.
Plus, their hardware is overpriced for what you get.
I genuinely have a hard time understanding the appeal. It seems to have the Gucci brand name, maybe integrations but I don't feel this is lacking on Android, and maybe privacy but I don't trust Apple for privacy.
Yet... I still use Android-based devices. They happen to be Google-free, i.e. no Google Services nor any Google apps, no Chrome or Chromium, no Google search engine. Instead of those Google apps I use things like ~Osmand (maps), Nextcloud (storage and some applications), etc. Firefox/Fennec and Privacy Browser for web-related things. A self-hosted Searx instance for searching. Peertube for video, Airsonic for audio, Libreoffice Online (integrated into Nextcloud) for that type of stuff, eJabberd for chat, now experimenting with Pixelfed for photo sharing, self-hosted mail/web/etc. I've been doing something like this for as long as I've been using Android, i.e. about 9 years.
Though I have no idea why would anyone trying to hide from Google. You can't really. Google spies on you everywhere, from every website. They already have all data and you can't do anything about it. It won't be much worse if they'll have a bit more data.
I have to disagree here - Google explicitly monetizes their information on your activity on the Internet, Apple does not.
Which similarly, it also happens on the other part of the world? E.g) US?
> HKMAP helps residents comply with the wishes of law enforcement (who communicate their demands by colored flags quickly raised in the dark).
> …[the app] doesn't contravene any Hong Kong law that I am aware of. This app helps answer questions like "will I get shot with a bean bag round if I come out of this MTR station, because the police raised a colored flag I can't see".
—Maciej Ceglowski, the American who runs the Pinboard bookmarking service, who has been in Hong Kong for a while now, to follow the protests.
Thread about how the app works, and how it keeps non-protesters safe: https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/1179233936582565888
About the use of tear gas and bean bag rounds: https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/1181790019943452675
Helpful and sassy comment.
The reason they inject emotion into the headlines is because that's what people want.
US is not gonna ban Google or Waze.
China might actually ban Apple tomorrow. There are no courts to appeal. There is no retort. Just the decision of one man.
When people see the news and make a judgement, it's often times the judgement the media want you to make. I'll give you another video about Hong Kong protesters for a different perspective: https://youtu.be/ZPYuGYLesx0
This video by no means represents all of the protesters, but I hope people here can see the same event from different angles.
Edit: fix typo
Why do you think those people react that way? Nobody is born with an opinion. What politics they were exposed to growing up? What did the schools teach them? What behaviour did the government punish, what did it allow? Which information sources where they given access to? Are the "actual Chinese people" who disagree with the party allowed to share their thoughts on Weibo without fear?
> Director of the SOAS China Institute Professor Steve Tsang said: "One way to improve, or re-earn a positive social credit score could be to report your neighbours for speaking against President Xi Jinping. This could be seen as helping to defend the honour of the country, or the honour of the leader, by alerting the party to someone who is potentially going to destabilise the country."
Things aren't as black and white as people make it out to be.
Now, I'll tell you I'm Chinese, but I've been in the US for almost ten years now. I've seen perspectives from both sides and the truth is far from what western media tells you. The unfortunate problem is the language barrier. Many people in English speaking countries cannot read Chinese, thus relying on "Chinese experts" for their opinions, without realizing many of the so-called experts themselves cannot speak Chinese.
I tell you that I don't support the Hong Kong protest, this is not posted on Weibo or any Chinese social media. This is my own feeling and judgement. It's sad I even need to make this disclaimer. Now you have this one data point from me as a Chinese citizen, if that's worth anything.
For example, is it that most Chinese people are genuinely, organically outraged? Or is it a small, vocal minority that is being amplified by state media? Or is it mainly groups like the 50 Cent Army manipulating public opinion? It's hard to say, and I don't think the Western media is equipped to answer that question.
As an example, there are reports that Chinese media outlets are dishonestly painting the HK protestors as largely a violent group that (among other things) are separatists. If people in China hear that, and believe that, I'd say outrage is completely understandable... but it's based on a false premise. But I don't -- and can't -- know what's actually happening over there, so it's just one explanation among many possibilities. How do we, as foreigners, get to the heart of the matter? Is it even possible?
To your note about the language barrier: I think about that a lot. I speak/understand a very tiny amount of Chinese, and can read basically none (something I'd like to improve at soon). I was watching a recording of a clip of a Chinese news broadcast, and of course there was a translator speaking over it in English. How do I know the English translation was actually what was said? Even if the translators were acting in good faith, how do I know that the translation accurately expresses the intent of the speaker? I don't, and recognize that there are limits to how much I can understand what's going on.
I think, also, for context, a lot of non-Chinese people naturally distrust China's government. Personally, I have trouble believing anything at face value that comes out of an authoritarian government, or the media apparatus that it controls. The US has many, many faults, but at least I can believe with reasonable certainty that the media outlets are saying things (whether right or wrong) because they want to say them, not because the government is forcing them to say things.
To address your first point: are most people genuinely outraged? That I do not know tbh. I can only represent my own opinion. However, I have Chinese friends that have voices their discontent with the NBA and Hong Kong situation. That's all I can tell. For me personally, I'm against Hong Kong protest, but again, it's my own opinion.
About the news reports in China, ofc they are biased. Most if not all media are biased imo. But that doesn't mean you can't get information out of it. By getting your news from multiple sources and cross checking, you can be more confident in your judgement. By multiple sources I don't mean from CNN, Fox, etc., I mean sources from China, US, Europe and all other places. This again brings me to the language barrier point. It's hard for you to access the Chinese media without it being translated and presented to you, that I don't know how you can solve.
For the media being controlled by the government point, I'd like to agree on the Chinese part. The US media tho, while they seem to be saying what they want to say, sometimes it's not true. Case in point: https://youtu.be/yUGPIeE9kMc
About censoring, I'm not denying Chinese social media is heavily censored. However, I find the situation in western forums and social media are rather interesting. Whenever people post anything neutral/good about China, they get bashed and down voted to oblivion. People call them wumao/50 cents to ignore their opinions. Just my observations. Maybe there's a name for it, but I think it's a different form of censorship, but I could be wrong.
Again, I appreciate your response. I don't know why I'm getting down voted. Just because I hold a different view or something else?
They didn't even cover the protests for something like two weeks. They waited until they had some negative things to cover and their talking points all sorted out, then started hammering away about how violent the protestors were and how they were all that way because of foreign influence. It was truly absurd.
The Overton  window in China and amongst Chinese people is therefore very far from the truth. Combine that with social pressure, and poor reporting by Western sources, even overseas Chinese people have trouble understanding other opinions on the matter.
I don't agree about your different form of censorship idea. It's completely different to have the majority of people disagree with or ignore your opinion than to have top-down censorship of different ideas. I can easily find Chinese opinions on social media and educate myself about your beliefs. Not so easy in China. To me it just shows weakness - if the government of China can't trust their people to make up their own mind, what does that say about their arguments?
I haven't tried to bring up the Hong Kong protests with many friends here in China, just because I'm afraid of losing their friendships. How must it feel for Chinese people who have sympathy for them?
As far as the NBA, some friends have actually broached the topic with me. They tend to be upper-middle class, educated types, and while they might disagree with what that one guy said (and apologized for), they aren't angry at the NBA, and they feel the government response is ridiculous and counter-productive.
But the problem is that, internally, Chinese people don't have access to all that. They pretty much -- as you well know -- just have access to what the government allows. If the government tells everyone that the protesters in HK are doing terrible things, they have nothing to compare it to to check those "facts".
Regarding the video you linked, I got a good chuckle out of it, but I don't think it really suggests what the speaker thinks it does. He asks:
"Is it laziness that causes reporters to copy each other?"
In some cases, yes. Many (most?) news reports are based on one of several feeds. Often the end publications who write up pieces about it will use a lot of the same language. And in any case, journalists talk to each other, probably a lot, in the course of getting their work done.
"Is someone coordinating the message?"
Maybe? But the implied conspiracy angle here requires extraordinary evidence, and a bunch of news outlets all using the word "bracing" to describe how HK feels about the coming weekend is, well, circumstantial at best.
"Are these reports all just coincidences?"
Probably not, but that doesn't have to indicate that something nefarious is going on.
He goes on to state: "Freedom of speech means you can finally feel free to trust the media."
Wellll... kinda, but not really. Freedom of speech means that you, personally, can express your opinions without government interference. That also means the media can do the same. It means that you can feel free to trust that the media is saying what it says without the government pulling the strings. But, as you point out, everyone has their own biases, so you can't trust what the media says to be the hard truth, or at least to not be heavily slanted or spun in order to promote a particular narrative. Again, as you pointed out, reading from difference sources, from different places, can give you a better idea of what's really going on.
The news compilation at the end was also pretty funny, but not all that surprising. Remember that most television news in the US is owned by... maybe five(?) parent corporations. I'm not particularly happy with that, but the reality of the situation is that, for the most part, individual stations have a ton of freedom to report on whatever they want to report on. Sometimes -- as in this particular case -- the parent company will require that they run a segment on a particular topic, and I guess even provide suggested wording (which I figure most will probably just take as-is, if they don't find anything too disagreeable about it). And yes, this can be used for sketchy purposes. In this particular case -- talking about how spreading lies and incorrect information as truthful news is harmful to democracy -- well, that's true, and I don't really mind them passing along this message. But we have to be vigilant to spot an evil required message if and when one comes through.
Regarding "a different form of censorship", I don't really agree with that. It's very different for a government to not allow you to say something on the threat of jail, versus you saying something and your peers telling you you're wrong and you should shut up. I wish people wouldn't be so shitty about that, and try to engage in a more productive discussion, but... well, humanity isn't really all that great sometimes, I guess... to put it mildly.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted either. I hope it's not just because people disagree with you, but unfortunately that does happen sometimes on HN. I really appreciate that you've taken the time to have a conversation with me here!
Any means of propagating information is directly and heavily censored by the government itself in China, as you yourself readily acknowledge. There are well known, open, severe criminal penalties for failure to comply. This applies not only to media outlets, but even to ordinary people posting personal opinions on the internet. None of this is hidden or controversial.
Categorically, nothing remotely similar to that use of "widespread coercive criminal penalties to control the spread of information, as a government sponsored social control apparatus" exists in the west. (This does not imply anything about the status of biases existing or not existing in western media. That is a logically unrelated issue.)
It is not a question of different degrees or forms of what's basically the same thing; it is two totally different structures: one system uses the state's monopoly on the use of violence to directly and openly enforce and restrict the spread of information. The other system explicitly prohibits this.
What the moral goodness of each structure may be is a seperate question. What is objectively clear, though, is that their respective moral analyses must necessarily be wholly differently conducted, since they are structurally different at the most basic level. There is no possible moral equivalency.
I was told that people who live near HK can get HK TV and radio, which carries substantially the same news information about the protests as in western media, and this group has a variety of opinions.
Outside that area immediately adjacent to HK, I was told around 80% of people are unaware that protests are happening in HK at all, and most of the other 20% believe the protests are a western plot to undermine Chinese sovereignty.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, of course. It's one data point from one person.
The U.S. and Germany (and many other countries) have learned from horrific experiences (e.g. internment of Japanese Americans) and I think that has yielded greater freedoms that make it less likely that these tragic and disgusting actions will be repeated in the future. Hopefully when China learns the same lesson, it won't be too late.
That isn't the actual reaction of Chinese people, that's the reaction that the Chinese social media companies permit to be displayed. Do you think that a post supporting the Hong Kong protesters would be permitted by the censors?
THAT is how they think and what they are doing currently. Certainly not all of the protesters are like that, but none of the protesters are willing to tell them that these radical protesters doing / thinking is wrong.
The video shows one person being frustrated that a road is blocked by protesters: "if you kill people, set fires, I don't care. But you're blocking the road."
I'm sure if you look at any protest throughout history, you could find an anecdote of someone being inconvenienced by it.
She also fundamentally does not get how protesting works. "Tell me, why do you people need to block the road?", she asks. Because if you sit in a corner and protest where no one can see you, and it doesn't affect anyone's day in the least, you're completely ineffective. It's not great that random people have a harder day because of that, but as a protester, you need to occupy space in a way that causes problems, or you aren't taken seriously. It's a shame that's how it has to be, but that's how it is.
And beyond that, she's just lying and treating them poorly: accusing them of throwing things at her when they aren't, saying that they're armed when they aren't, claiming they want to beat her to death when they don't, and just overall acting completely irrationally. She even tells them that she doesn't care if they set fires and kill people, but just don't block the road. Even if she's being hyperbolic, that's a really shitty thing to say. Then she starts acting condescending, calling them kids who don't know what they're doing. Meanwhile, the "kids" just take it all, offering the truth in response, and she just ignores them and gets more agitated.
Meanwhile, her only real complaint is that "the road is blocked". My sympathy for her is basically zero. I only watched the first few minutes of the video because of how utterly annoying and unreasonable I found her to be.
People are censored and punished for disagreeing with their government and its dictator-for-life.
A lot of Chinese people have iPhones. Are you just going to hack all of them or replace all of them over night?
FWIW I'm happy they've chosen to allow the app (although at first they didn't), but the whole situation really brings the consequences of controlling a user's device to light. I hope it changes.
From all the android users who I have some level of intimacy, the only one sideloading an android app is my brother who uses a gps spoofer to teleport his Pokemon Go character around the world without leaving the confort of his chair. He's a dev and poweruser who knows what he's doing.
All the other dozens of users only have apps from Google's app store.
ps: I truly believe most of people here talking about Hong Kong have no idea how Hong Kong works before and after CCP. I found it both sad and amusing, but often time I found myself stupid when posting on the Internet. But anyhow, the facts should be delivered.
In the same vein, the United States is vastly more democratic than it was a 100 years ago. That does not mean the democratic process does not need additional improvement; there are critical things worth protesting today.
It is not true that all actions from the police are justifiable. But at the same time, HongKongers youth are definitely smart nowadays, they know exactly the interests of the western media. Hence they will always play nice with 'reporters' from different colors and always portray themselves as the victims in many incidents.
Quiet, non-offensive protests do not work. Large-scale, massive protests that disrupt society have a chance of working.
I also don't think it's reasonable to expect that police tear gas protesters and shoot them in the face with rubber pullets and expect zero acts in return - especially since one of the HK demands is an investigation into ongoing Police Brutality.
The protesters have never asked nicely. The history of HK protests post handover has been couched in nativism bigotry against mainland China, the very audience they should be trying to win over. If their problem was the Chinese government, they wouldn't be targeting mainland people and their businesses. Whatever little effort they made to reach out was framed in "support us because you're brainwashed" language. They would be burning CPC government flag instead of the Chinese national one. They wouldn't be waving western flags, which may as well be tiki torches, or appealing to western authorities.
Ever considered why no one ever had the idea of waving the Chinese flag and petitioning the Chinese for change? They should try it. It's easy for the CPC to look the other way and watch the city burn, it's much harder for the CPC to ignore 2 million HKers who wave the Chinese flag for a better future. Of course that doesn't play well with the west, but maybe they shouldn't be focusing on them in the first place. The cost of their strategy is that on mainland China, whose sentiment their future depends upon, HK protestors are viewed as the equivalent of alt-right agitators instead of patriots: disenfranchised, social media savvy, economically anxious youth who see their culture being displaced and their privileged being eroded by immigrant mainlanders. Rich ones come in to buy all the property, poor ones use up all the social services. These are common complaints to the mainland locust narrative - when the mainland sends their people, they're not sending their best.
You mean the same China that just cancelled the NBA playoff broadcasts because a single NBA GM tweeted support for HK? https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/nba-china-revenue-busines... The same China that does not even allow the emoji for Taiwan? https://qz.com/1723334/apple-removes-taiwan-flag-emoji-in-ho...
Why indeed would they ask China to help Taiwan - China has made it incredibly obvious they do not recognize Taiwan.
Considering China's past (hello Tiananmen Square) there is a history of violent suppression of dissident thought or political opinion. The first demand of the protesters is literally "Full withdrawal of the extradition bill" - where do you think they would be extradited to?
At the end of the day, HK fate is decided by appeasing to China not the west. If you're going to wave the Chinese equivalent of alt right symbolism and violently target mainlanders, they will be treated accordingly. Which btw by all objective metrics have been exceedingly restraint for protests its size. The point is, don't pretend this was a well intented or peaceful protest, anyone who understands the subtext knows it's anything but.
2. It's an incredibly bad argument that HK should be trying to peacefully win over China to their cause given that China has made it absolutely clear that they do not recognize HK.
3. "If you're going to wave the Chinese equivalent of alt right symbolism and violently target mainlanders, they will be treated accordingly."
Is there a 'Worst of HN' I can submit this to? I haven't seen someone so bravely defend fascist police brutality in quite awhile.
It got through the approval process recently.
Bloomberg claims they saw the initial rejection notice, which was later reversed.
What I meant was that it had never been approved, so the state never switched.
But you’re right, the reporting was that it was initially rejected, so I was wrong.
This would be a wild future.
If this is the series of events that triggers the next global recession, it gives both the US and Chinese govt enough fodder for propaganda about "national security concerns" and how this is the other side's fault. Oy
Because it has, occasionally, in the past.
Apple doesn't have a perfect record when it comes to China. It's OK. I'm not sure I'd call it "good."
But between the Taiwan flag emoji, and the Chinese iCloud fiasco, my esteem for Apple is at an all-time low.
This is a new change with iOS 13.1.x and 13.2.
It would be one that makes me change to a more expensive platform in 3-6 months.
If you really are an Android user, this should not be news. You can put any app on your device. Only Apple restricts you.
2.5/5 rating thanks to stupid Chinese bots.
Taiwan is another thing.
Why can’t we get a proper leader to do the same? Are any of the Democratic Party nominees making good noises about China?
Generally this isn't a very partisan debate. Most people who support Hong Kong do so in the name of democracy or self-determination. Most of China's supporters are acting in their economic self interest or because of appeals to nationalism.
What we forget is that this assumes infinite corporate growth, which is literally impossible, despite being demanded by shareholders. We need to drop this notion that every single year has to result in growth. Corporations no longer have the option of settling into a market segment and developing a harmonious relationship with society. They grow like cancers, consuming everything they possibly can ad infinitum, and this unquenchable hunger is the only reason they find themselves making compromises to appease China.
The toxic and relentless push for infinite growth pairs really well with the dreamy promise of infinite untapped market potential in China.
I really wish even the greediest of investors and shareholders in general to finally wake up that this dream will never materialise. Even if you get to China you'll quickly find out there are a lot of strings attached if you want your "infinite growth" -- and it definitely will be a lot less than you thought.
Infinite growth is useless on a mortal timescale. Easy and fast growth is where it's at and places like China offer tons of it.
Do you have a 401k? Do you plan on having a retirement? Then infinite growth needs to be a thing, otherwise that 7-9% a year that people think they are "guaranteed" from index funds would evaporate. If people couldn't make money off of passive investments it would turn the entire economy upside down.
This is the point of confusion: media often presents growth as == profit. But growth is growth in profit. The derivative of profit; expanding profits, over time. A company that doesn't grow at all continues to output just as much profit, just not more profit.
This preference has always bugged me as personally I'd prefer to have a consistent trickle I can plan on than a sudden value spike I have to capitalize on, but I suppose I've always been adverse to gambling anyway.
Either you want globalism or you don't. This is the problem with globalism too, not everyone wants to play by your rules and sometimes they're big enough to tell you to pound sand... which is exactly what China is doing.
Let Chinese companies have the China market; let the rest of the world cut it off like the tumor it is.
That assumption is not necessary. Economies of scale and network effects are important. Platform companies can be crippled relative to competition if they are cut from large markets even if the markets are finite.
Awww, your feelings got hurt? Care to think about the feelings of a million Uighur people that are being tortured in concentration camps? Or the 7 million Hongkongers that you've been trying bully into submission?