7 ms·

Huawei and Facebook/Google case is not the same. Huawei was put in the Entity list. That means two things. 1)Huawei can't sell any equipment or phone in the U

Huawei and Facebook/Google case is not the same. Huawei was put in the Entity list. That means two things. 1)Huawei can't sell any equipment or phone in the US. It's about market access. It's equal to Google/Facebook were denied to access the Chinese market if they don't obey the censorship policies. Huawei was also denied to access mainstream America market for a long time. 2)Huawei can't buy any components and services from any American companies. Even Google & Facebook are not accessible in China, they still have lots of business there. So basically, Putting Huawei in the Entity list almost means to kill Huawei because Chips from American companies are important for their supply chain. It's not only about market access. That's the reason many people in China feel very angry.

creddit 7y ago
The basic idea behind your point is "What we (China) did is totally fine in terms of working against your (US) economy but you doing something different against us (China) is NOT okay, irrespective of the magnitude of impact." Seems pretty silly to me. China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China is dramatically more damaging at scale than US blacklisting Huawei.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  joel_liu was crystal clear about where the cases are similar and where they diverged. There was even a numbered list to help you out with it. Saying that there's more harm done by blocking Facebook inside China than there is by trying to eliminate Huawei worldwide... well, I'm already on record downthread calling that attitude colonialist. I suppose, if it backfires and causes Huawei to successfully develop a competing OS, you'll be sort of right.. although I think intentions should count for something.
  - creddit 7y ago
    What's your point? Do you think I misrepresented his points? What he didn't include was the relative damage from these different motions which was my expansion on it. Feel free to add more to the discussion than "what he said was well laid out".
  - creddit 7y ago
    Nice use of the edit to actually include something beyond "it was well laid out". Not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or not but China hasn't blocked just Facebook from operating in China. They've blocked US enterprises whole hog except where they had no alternative. On a level playing field where US enterprises had equal access to China as Chinese enterprises to the US, the proceeds would be dramatically larger than that of the single enterprise that is Huawei. Call it "colonialist" or whatever dirty word you want to paint the US as evil, it's hard to look at the way China has operated from an economic POV and not have expected retaliation at some point. If Huawei and other Chinese enterprises develop their own OS, it will be comically difficult if not impossible for it to compete on the worldwide stage unless it's focused on being compatible with existing apps. Network effects are real. Android has minimal threat.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      > They've blocked US enterprises whole hog except where they had no alternative. Try walking through a mall in Shanghai it Beijing some day, and try saying this again. American companies and brands are everywhere. They don't have to drink Starbucks - it would be perfectly possible for a Chinese company to brew coffee - but they do. > it's hard to look at the way China has operated from an economic POV and not have expected retaliation at some point. They've provided cheap labor to American corporations, boosting those companies' profits. They've allowed their labor force to be massively exploited by Western companies, with the understanding that they themselves would be able to eventually move up the value chain and live on a level closer to people in the developed world. The reason for the "retaliation" is that there is a circle of people in American politics that cannot accept the United States being eclipsed by another power. This is about geopolitics. An established power fears a rising power, and is moving to try to cripple the rising power while there's still time.
- joel_liu 7y ago
  You misunderstood the comment. I didn't mean it's fine. Most people don't like censorship. I just presented the perspective from the other side. Regarding your point about the "against US economy" or "against China economy". Maybe you are in a war mindset. If we jump out this "war" mindset, we can see "China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China" is really not about against the "US economy". It's about censorship. 1) There are many US companies which are very successful in China, Qualcomm, Apple, Nike, Starbuck, etc. Actually, I rarely heard any stories about the market access problem for non-internet companies in China. 2) There is a "forced IP transfer/partnership" issue in some sectors, for example, the auto sector. It is very unfair. But the result of it is also very complex. I will address it in a separate post. 3) The market access issue of many internet companies, such as Facebook/Google, is about censorship policies. Google operated in China several years ago, but it withdrew from the market because of the censorship requirements from the government. Apple complies with the requirement, so it works well in China. I didn't mean "Censorship" is a good thing. I just mean as far as I can understand, it's about "censorship", not about "against US economy". "Magnitude of impact": Could you explain more about this point?
  - killjoywashere 7y ago
    > Google operated in China several years ago, but it withdrew from the market because of the censorship requirements from the government Google hesitated to enter China because of the censorship requirements (1) but eventually entered anyway, led by a researcher they hired away from Microsoft, Kai-Fu Lee (1, 2). They exited because they caught the Chinese associates stealing source code, and only after their first "war room" effort to nail down exactly what was going on (1, 3). (1) https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/1416596585/ https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/14... (2) https://www.cio.com/article/2425034/head-of-google-china-leaving-to-start-new-venture.html https://www.cio.com/article/2425034/head-of-google-china-lea... (3) https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/
    - joel_liu 7y ago
      Thanks for bringing these references up. However, I think the major reason is still censorship or too much censorship & political dissent. The aim of stealing source code is probably to hack the account of political dissents as Google pointed out. The action was more about "the political motivation related to dissent" than "against US economy". That's my main point. https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-founder-on-pulling-out-of-china-it-was-a-real-step-backward-a-686269.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-foun... Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our side. SPIEGEL: Four years ago, you allowed your service to be censored. Why have you changed your mind now? Brin: The hacking attacks were the straw that broke the camel's back. There were several aspects there: the attack directly on Google, which we believe was an attempt to gain access to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. But there is also a broader pattern we then discovered of simply the surveillance of human rights activists. "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. "
threatofrain 7y ago
Perhaps the response is disproportionate because the United States has built up international coalitions over time, but a lot of people observing western media are going to think that this is but one event in a recent history of tension and escalation. I would say similarly if China decides to limit their production of rare earth metals.

creddit 7y ago

The basic idea behind your point is "What we (China) did is totally fine in terms of working against your (US) economy but you doing something different against us (China) is NOT okay, irrespective of the magnitude of impact." Seems pretty silly to me. China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China is dramatically more damaging at scale than US blacklisting Huawei.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
joel_liu was crystal clear about where the cases are similar and where they diverged. There was even a numbered list to help you out with it. Saying that there's more harm done by blocking Facebook inside China than there is by trying to eliminate Huawei worldwide... well, I'm already on record downthread calling that attitude colonialist. I suppose, if it backfires and causes Huawei to successfully develop a competing OS, you'll be sort of right.. although I think intentions should count for something.
- creddit 7y ago
  What's your point? Do you think I misrepresented his points? What he didn't include was the relative damage from these different motions which was my expansion on it. Feel free to add more to the discussion than "what he said was well laid out".
- creddit 7y ago
  Nice use of the edit to actually include something beyond "it was well laid out". Not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or not but China hasn't blocked just Facebook from operating in China. They've blocked US enterprises whole hog except where they had no alternative. On a level playing field where US enterprises had equal access to China as Chinese enterprises to the US, the proceeds would be dramatically larger than that of the single enterprise that is Huawei. Call it "colonialist" or whatever dirty word you want to paint the US as evil, it's hard to look at the way China has operated from an economic POV and not have expected retaliation at some point. If Huawei and other Chinese enterprises develop their own OS, it will be comically difficult if not impossible for it to compete on the worldwide stage unless it's focused on being compatible with existing apps. Network effects are real. Android has minimal threat.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    > They've blocked US enterprises whole hog except where they had no alternative. Try walking through a mall in Shanghai it Beijing some day, and try saying this again. American companies and brands are everywhere. They don't have to drink Starbucks - it would be perfectly possible for a Chinese company to brew coffee - but they do. > it's hard to look at the way China has operated from an economic POV and not have expected retaliation at some point. They've provided cheap labor to American corporations, boosting those companies' profits. They've allowed their labor force to be massively exploited by Western companies, with the understanding that they themselves would be able to eventually move up the value chain and live on a level closer to people in the developed world. The reason for the "retaliation" is that there is a circle of people in American politics that cannot accept the United States being eclipsed by another power. This is about geopolitics. An established power fears a rising power, and is moving to try to cripple the rising power while there's still time.
joel_liu 7y ago
You misunderstood the comment. I didn't mean it's fine. Most people don't like censorship. I just presented the perspective from the other side. Regarding your point about the "against US economy" or "against China economy". Maybe you are in a war mindset. If we jump out this "war" mindset, we can see "China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China" is really not about against the "US economy". It's about censorship. 1) There are many US companies which are very successful in China, Qualcomm, Apple, Nike, Starbuck, etc. Actually, I rarely heard any stories about the market access problem for non-internet companies in China. 2) There is a "forced IP transfer/partnership" issue in some sectors, for example, the auto sector. It is very unfair. But the result of it is also very complex. I will address it in a separate post. 3) The market access issue of many internet companies, such as Facebook/Google, is about censorship policies. Google operated in China several years ago, but it withdrew from the market because of the censorship requirements from the government. Apple complies with the requirement, so it works well in China. I didn't mean "Censorship" is a good thing. I just mean as far as I can understand, it's about "censorship", not about "against US economy". "Magnitude of impact": Could you explain more about this point?
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  > Google operated in China several years ago, but it withdrew from the market because of the censorship requirements from the government Google hesitated to enter China because of the censorship requirements (1) but eventually entered anyway, led by a researcher they hired away from Microsoft, Kai-Fu Lee (1, 2). They exited because they caught the Chinese associates stealing source code, and only after their first "war room" effort to nail down exactly what was going on (1, 3). (1) https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/1416596585/ https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/14... (2) https://www.cio.com/article/2425034/head-of-google-china-leaving-to-start-new-venture.html https://www.cio.com/article/2425034/head-of-google-china-lea... (3) https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/
  - joel_liu 7y ago
    Thanks for bringing these references up. However, I think the major reason is still censorship or too much censorship & political dissent. The aim of stealing source code is probably to hack the account of political dissents as Google pointed out. The action was more about "the political motivation related to dissent" than "against US economy". That's my main point. https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-founder-on-pulling-out-of-china-it-was-a-real-step-backward-a-686269.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-foun... Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our side. SPIEGEL: Four years ago, you allowed your service to be censored. Why have you changed your mind now? Brin: The hacking attacks were the straw that broke the camel's back. There were several aspects there: the attack directly on Google, which we believe was an attempt to gain access to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. But there is also a broader pattern we then discovered of simply the surveillance of human rights activists. "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. "

threatofrain 7y ago

Perhaps the response is disproportionate because the United States has built up international coalitions over time, but a lot of people observing western media are going to think that this is but one event in a recent history of tension and escalation. I would say similarly if China decides to limit their production of rare earth metals.