4 ms·

Did the US ever respond to China's use of the "Great Cannon" on github? Having a nation state actor so publicly attack/censor a small company shouldn't be tole

by zawerf 8y ago

Did the US ever respond to China's use of the "Great Cannon" on github? Having a nation state actor so publicly attack/censor a small company shouldn't be tolerated.

whatcanthisbee 8y ago
well if you look at comments on reddit/youtube/etc, you'll find a lot of Chinese-sponsored comments ;) look for the wumaos! too bad China don't have whistleblowers because the Chinese gov. are too effective --- it'll simply go after the family members...
orev 8y ago
We’re already starting a trade war with them over unfair business practices, and one could argue this incident would fall under that. What else do you want to see? Bombs and missiles?
- curiousgal 8y ago
  >We’re already starting a trade war with them over unfair business practices Technically you've started a trade war with everyone so it's hard to determine whether unfair business practices are the real reason or not.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - orev 8y ago
    I don’t disagree but many economists do agree that something should be done about China — not so much for the rest of the world. Most likely Trump just happened to get it right with China (the sentiment at least, maybe not the method) while flailing around. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
    - ctchocula 8y ago
      Can you list some economists that agree with Trump something should be done about China? Most economists I've heard suggests the opposite, so a citation would be great.
      - orev 8y ago
        NyTimes article stating pretty much exactly the point I’m making: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/economy/trump-economists.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/economy/trump...
  - adventured 8y ago
    > Technically you've started a trade war with everyone That's incorrect. The US is in meaningful trade confict with only a few nations: China, Germany, France, Canada, and Mexico. While the EU operates as a whole for the most part on these matters, the conflict is overwhelmingly with Germany's extreme trade surplus. Canada and Mexico are about NAFTA positioning primarily. For one example, the US runs a vast trade deficit with Vietnam. So far this year there is a five to one ratio between imports and exports with Vietnam (in favor of Vietnam). For 2017, the trade deficit with Vietnam was so large it's equal to about 20% of their entire economy. The US is not starting a trade war with Vietnam, and isn't going after Vietnam as eg the EU. Do you know why? Strategic positioning. Vietnam is a valuable future and present offset to China on offshore manufacturing; to be used to debase some of China's regional economic hegemony and to build up more regional powers that the US can work with against China in the future. Pursuing tariffs on steel and aluminum is legitimately about US national security. It's stupid to allow those industries to erode any further given their importance. You don't want to be dependent on Japan (5%) and South Korea (11%) for steel imports in the middle of a conflict with China and or North Korea. You don't want to be asking for steel from Russia (7% of steel imports) during a conflict with Russia. Going after Canada is primarily about positioning for the NAFTA talks. Canada does in fact have some substantial barriers in their dairy and agriculture markets. The US by contrast has nearly the lowest agriculture tariffs of any nation. The trade conflict with Canada will ultimately be trivial and will be over shortly. All other nations are universally allowed to shelter and protect all sorts of pet domestic industries, whether it's dairy or maple syrup in Canada or energy in Mexico, or practically everything in China. The US the only nation held to an entirely different standard.
    - phs318u 8y ago
      > The US by contrast has nearly the lowest agriculture tariffs of any nation. In trying to find evidence either way for this statement I came across the OECD data website, which is pretty cool. The following link shows "government support for agriculture" (which is a greater set than just tariffs) across a few select countries (though note, EU28 is treated as a single entity). Interesting stuff! https://data.oecd.org/chart/5duj https://data.oecd.org/chart/5duj Note: I'm not making a point regarding parent's claim. EDIT: adding parent page FYI: https://data.oecd.org/agrpolicy/agricultural-support.htm https://data.oecd.org/agrpolicy/agricultural-support.htm
forkLding 8y ago
Aside from sanctions/trade wars and legal litigation, the other alternative would be a legitimate war, which would likely ensue into a world war and then maybe a nuclear war.
- bb88 8y ago
  Perhaps "shooting war" might be a better term.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Aside from sanctions/trade wars and legal litigation, the other alternative would be a legitimate war This isn't true at all. There are many, many levers of diplomatic power, and the U.S. has far more of them than anyone (or they did before they started withdrawing from a world leadership position). There are many, many things that China wants and needs, economically, politically, in trade, in finance, in agriculture, in tech, etc. etc. The U.S. can make them pay a price in many ways without starting a trade war. That's the essential art of diplomacy: Act without escalating to a bigger problem.
louithethrid 8y ago
The new owner- microsoft would sacrifice its dev services reliability for keeping bings foot in the chinese search market. So nothing would happen. Maye a soft denial of service by github itself to open source projects.
hugh4life 8y ago
A little OT, but I think I remember reading Chinese users on quora who were a little worried about how Microsoft would handle takedown notices for sensitive topics as gitHub was pretty resistant to China's complaints.

by zawerf 8y ago

Did the US ever respond to China's use of the "Great Cannon" on github? Having a nation state actor so publicly attack/censor a small company shouldn't be tolerated.

whatcanthisbee 8y ago

well if you look at comments on reddit/youtube/etc, you'll find a lot of Chinese-sponsored comments ;) look for the wumaos! too bad China don't have whistleblowers because the Chinese gov. are too effective --- it'll simply go after the family members...

orev 8y ago

We’re already starting a trade war with them over unfair business practices, and one could argue this incident would fall under that. What else do you want to see? Bombs and missiles?

curiousgal 8y ago
>We’re already starting a trade war with them over unfair business practices Technically you've started a trade war with everyone so it's hard to determine whether unfair business practices are the real reason or not.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- orev 8y ago
  I don’t disagree but many economists do agree that something should be done about China — not so much for the rest of the world. Most likely Trump just happened to get it right with China (the sentiment at least, maybe not the method) while flailing around. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
  - ctchocula 8y ago
    Can you list some economists that agree with Trump something should be done about China? Most economists I've heard suggests the opposite, so a citation would be great.
    - orev 8y ago
      NyTimes article stating pretty much exactly the point I’m making: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/economy/trump-economists.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/economy/trump...
- adventured 8y ago
  > Technically you've started a trade war with everyone That's incorrect. The US is in meaningful trade confict with only a few nations: China, Germany, France, Canada, and Mexico. While the EU operates as a whole for the most part on these matters, the conflict is overwhelmingly with Germany's extreme trade surplus. Canada and Mexico are about NAFTA positioning primarily. For one example, the US runs a vast trade deficit with Vietnam. So far this year there is a five to one ratio between imports and exports with Vietnam (in favor of Vietnam). For 2017, the trade deficit with Vietnam was so large it's equal to about 20% of their entire economy. The US is not starting a trade war with Vietnam, and isn't going after Vietnam as eg the EU. Do you know why? Strategic positioning. Vietnam is a valuable future and present offset to China on offshore manufacturing; to be used to debase some of China's regional economic hegemony and to build up more regional powers that the US can work with against China in the future. Pursuing tariffs on steel and aluminum is legitimately about US national security. It's stupid to allow those industries to erode any further given their importance. You don't want to be dependent on Japan (5%) and South Korea (11%) for steel imports in the middle of a conflict with China and or North Korea. You don't want to be asking for steel from Russia (7% of steel imports) during a conflict with Russia. Going after Canada is primarily about positioning for the NAFTA talks. Canada does in fact have some substantial barriers in their dairy and agriculture markets. The US by contrast has nearly the lowest agriculture tariffs of any nation. The trade conflict with Canada will ultimately be trivial and will be over shortly. All other nations are universally allowed to shelter and protect all sorts of pet domestic industries, whether it's dairy or maple syrup in Canada or energy in Mexico, or practically everything in China. The US the only nation held to an entirely different standard.
  - phs318u 8y ago
    > The US by contrast has nearly the lowest agriculture tariffs of any nation. In trying to find evidence either way for this statement I came across the OECD data website, which is pretty cool. The following link shows "government support for agriculture" (which is a greater set than just tariffs) across a few select countries (though note, EU28 is treated as a single entity). Interesting stuff! https://data.oecd.org/chart/5duj https://data.oecd.org/chart/5duj Note: I'm not making a point regarding parent's claim. EDIT: adding parent page FYI: https://data.oecd.org/agrpolicy/agricultural-support.htm https://data.oecd.org/agrpolicy/agricultural-support.htm

forkLding 8y ago

Aside from sanctions/trade wars and legal litigation, the other alternative would be a legitimate war, which would likely ensue into a world war and then maybe a nuclear war.

bb88 8y ago
Perhaps "shooting war" might be a better term.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Aside from sanctions/trade wars and legal litigation, the other alternative would be a legitimate war This isn't true at all. There are many, many levers of diplomatic power, and the U.S. has far more of them than anyone (or they did before they started withdrawing from a world leadership position). There are many, many things that China wants and needs, economically, politically, in trade, in finance, in agriculture, in tech, etc. etc. The U.S. can make them pay a price in many ways without starting a trade war. That's the essential art of diplomacy: Act without escalating to a bigger problem.

louithethrid 8y ago

The new owner- microsoft would sacrifice its dev services reliability for keeping bings foot in the chinese search market. So nothing would happen. Maye a soft denial of service by github itself to open source projects.

hugh4life 8y ago

A little OT, but I think I remember reading Chinese users on quora who were a little worried about how Microsoft would handle takedown notices for sensitive topics as gitHub was pretty resistant to China's complaints.