11 ms·

The degree that China goes to censor things reminds me of kindergarten. Pull the shades down, and kids won't want to go outside? Is it simply a reminder to thei

The degree that China goes to censor things reminds me of kindergarten. Pull the shades down, and kids won't want to go outside? Is it simply a reminder to their people of who's in charge, at this level of pettiness?

duxup 7y ago
I think it is petty. At the same time it's a good gauge for them to figure out what else they can do. Start with "hey man don't show that one pic" and the company figures "it's one pic, whatever we're not really compromising our values". A few more steps and then it seems less dramatic when it comes to "give us that information on that one user"... and so on. Personally I would expect an external social credit score coming soon too. It doesn't have to be all encompassing like the social credit score, but good luck getting a job with a company who wants to work with China if you're on the list...
- goodluckchuck 7y ago
  It also tells China how useful Apple is to US intelligence efforts. Setting aside the financial aspect, if Apple is unwilling to make a stand here, then they can infer that Apple is not willing to lose access to the market over this. If they push further and further in a "measured" approach, they can detect resistance. If Apple gets close to the point where they are willing to fight / bail. They it's likely because the situation is getting to the point where its a losing deal. By knowing the costs they impose, they can measure the value to Apple. By controlling for the financial aspect (which they can calculate based on production costs + sales), they can figure out a rough value of the intel and it's nature. Of course, that's assuming Apple acts rationally, which would be ill-advised.
- awayfromhomenow 7y ago
  Pretty scary thought, but progress being what it is, I don't see anything blocking it. I'm sure they already decline to do business with anyone that is vocally critical of China, or for example, highly complementary of the Dali Lama.
  - president 7y ago
    Happened just yesterday after GM of the Houston Rockets spoke out *for the HK protests: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/business/houston-rockets-nba-china-daryl-morey/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/business/houston-rockets-nba-... EDIT: s/against/for/
    - jaynetics 7y ago
      *for
    - 7u5432throw 7y ago
      At least he didn’t kneel during the anthem!
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >A few more steps and then it seems less dramatic when it comes to "give us that information on that one user"... and so on. That has already happened. Only instead of handing over data on specific users upon request, Apple has simply handed over all iCloud data of all its (mainland) Chinese users to a government owned company: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351
- diminoten 7y ago
  This is a fallacy, stop with this kind of logic. At whatever point where the requests become unreasonable is the point at which to raise issue, not because of some arbitrary "precedent setting" bullshit. The frog, in reality, just jumps out of the pot when the water gets too hot.
  - pjlegato 7y ago
    If most people operated rationally, it would be correct to disregard slippery slope arguments as fallacies when analyzing the spread of ideas in society. However, most people do not operate rationally most of the time -- they use rough heuristics and perceived social signaling of others to arrive at (usually irrational) conclusions about most issues. Empirically, slippery slopes have always been an extremely common way change is driven in mass social thinking. This has been formalized as the "Overton window": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
    - diminoten 7y ago
      I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not true or real in the sense that the counter-argument is entirely effective. Specifically, "When that thing you're worried about actually comes up, then we'll decide what to do." Saying, "We're still three steps from my issue but this thing that, in and of itself I have no problem with, can't happen because it might lead to the thing I have a problem with." is not a valid argument. To try and bring it back into focus, it's a real problem that this "one pic" isn't being shown. It's not a slippery slope conversation, because we're already at the thing I/we have a problem with. No need to argue the "this paves the way for worse things" because this is the worse thing! We're here!
- __m 7y ago
  Well if the NSA gets access why not opening up to other governments?
hatsunearu 7y ago
I think the fact that they have so much power that they can micromanage incredibly petty things is indicative that CCP has way too much power.
president 7y ago
They do it because it works. Combine censorship with a populace that is largely taught not to exercise critical thinking and you get China. Many of my Chinese colleagues who did not know about Nazi concentration camps, let alone the concentration camps that are currently running in their own country today.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Mmm, yeah, lack of critical thinking combined with a nationalist, "we're number one" media environment. We would never be like that.. I mean, we're better than them. We're number one.
maweki 7y ago
I think most people on Hacker-News would know that Taiwan exists, even though a flag is missing on their phone. I think for the general population in the US or Europe that's not so clear. If one would never hear about Taiwan, would we really "know" it exists?
- have_faith 7y ago
  > If one would never hear about Taiwan, would we really "know" it exists? It's a sort of reverse branding exercise. If you can reduce exposure as much as possible there's not going to be a lot of sentiment for supporting the cause. What would be of Palestine today without the exposure that has been directed at it.
  - maweki 7y ago
    It's not like Israel is - not talking about the truth of that claim here - denying the very existence of their neighbouring states. On the contrary, palestine and part of the palestine people are branded as great evil. Being branded as _anything_ is being "known". Famously or infamously.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > I think most people on Hacker-News would know that Taiwan exists I frequently come across, in America, people who are genuinely surprised that Taiwan is a sovereign state.
  - oasisbob 7y ago
    Are you sure they don't just disagree with your use of the word sovereign? I find it a strange way to describe the ROC and Taiwan. Without a clear territory under exclusive control, recognition from other governments, or independence from the mainland, what's so sovereign about it?
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > Are you sure they don't just disagree with your use of the word sovereign? Yes, when people debate Taiwan’s sovereignty (for, independent foreign relations and a military, against, limited recognition) they understand the local context. That there is legitimate dispute with respect to its status is news to a surprising number of Americans.
thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
China is showing the ability to control one of the world's largest, and most advanced companies. It isn't petty–it is scary. The U.S. and others have sold their soul to the devil for $299 flat screen tvs.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  As if the US hadn't sold their soul already? :/ I'm not trying to downplay the horrors of China, but let's not act like the US had clean hands before importing bulk electronics.
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    Always this same comment when anyone points the finger at China.
    - jaynetics 7y ago
      The comment is just pointing out to the OP that any moral bankruptcy of the US can most certainly not be blamed on China.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      The comment I was replying to implicitly suggested the US had a "soul" prior to engaging in business with China, I wasn't the one who brought up the US. If I had brought up the US out of the blue I'd agree that it was an irrelevant whataboutism, but in this context I feel it was entirely appropriate and on topic.
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
    I'm not sure the average American benefited as directly to the atrocites of the past. The U.S. simply cannot change course without a serious alteration of the the ethos of the country.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      Oh we definitely have, everyone benefitted massively from the "manifest destiny" attitude behind the many atrocities committed against the native Americans. It's also not our fault, infar as we didn't literally pull any triggers. We're probably still complicit to some degree, however, by our general lack of support for reparation actions.
oconnor663 7y ago
Imagine that the war of 1812 had resulted a complete British/Canadian conquest of the US, which lasted for the most of the 19th century. Then imagine that Florida had successfully seceded from the US after WWII and joined the Soviet Union, along with all of Canada. Then finally imagine that the Soviet Union won the Cold War and has been the sole world superpower for the last thirty years. How would we feel, in that world, if the US government wanted to censor people mentioning Florida? Of course there would be complicated questions about whether that censorship was ethical or helpful, and about the government's real motivations for proposing it. But I think it would be clear to everyone involved that "kindergarten levels of pettiness" wasn't the right starting point for understanding those motivations.
- frozenport 7y ago
  Not complicated, we've never sensored the names of our enemies, at all.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  Tell your bosses at the Ministry of Culture that trying to use Britain and the United States as analogies to the situation with Taiwan is going to backfire on you. At this point, Taiwan is fully-independent with its own national identity, and so saying they need to reunify with China is as ridiculous as asking Americans to "reunify" with the UK. It's not gonna happen, at least not voluntarily.
- yellowarchangel 7y ago
  I don't think censoring facts is ever anything but black and white. The fact that Taiwan exists, Hong Kong exists, Falun Gong, Tibet... These are all real things. There shouldn't ever be a reason to hide the fact that they exist no matter if todays reality wasn't todays reality.
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    Facts are rarely black and white. Look at USA reporting about Venezuela or Cuba. It's factual, yet it also implicitly takes sides. Which facts? How are they presented?
adrianmonk 7y ago
Personally, I wouldn't use the word petty because I think it suggests that the motivation is basically about childish insecurity and that there isn't a deliberate rationale behind it. Instead, I think China does this sort of thing to control discourse and/or to send constant reminders that certain lines should not be crossed or there will be consequences. Both are bad things, but they are different types of bad thing.
- dmix 7y ago
  Censorship has a natural way of forever expanding and broadening in scope. Often because it’s the only power some groups can exert on others (in this case China's gov to western companies) so they push it as far as they can into the realm of ridiculousness. Plus people get job promotions or feel-good emotions about "doing something". Eventually you run out of legitimate things to ban so you expand the scope. Then you can start banning people who complain about bannings, which naturally generating groups with victim complexes warranting more bannings, etc. This is not unique to China.
vkou 7y ago
This level of pettiness is very much the international norm for territorial and sovereignty disputes. The only newsworthy thing is that China's a big enough market that it can compel vendors to comply.
headsupftw 7y ago
The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan as a country. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations. Apple's revenue in Taiwan is peanuts compared to that of mainland China. The list goes on.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  The US used to recognise the government as the government of the whole of China and the communists as insurgents, with Taiwan holding the Chinese seat in the UN. Obviously, at some point realpolitik caught up and they reversed their stance, though they continue to help Taiwan because... more realpolitik.
- jrockway 7y ago
  We might not officially recognize them as a country, but we do have a law called the "Taiwan Relations Act". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act
- umvi 7y ago
  Trump enraged China when he tweeted that he talked to "the President of Taiwan" though, so clearly most people in the US think of Taiwan as being separate from China
- brobinson 7y ago
  The US has also never recognized Taiwan as being part of the PRC. I'm not even sure why you're bringing this up in relation to the parent's comment.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan as a country. That means little. The US has de-facto diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and has made official commitments to its defense against threats (which realistically could only ever come from the PRC), such as selling it arms. The weirdness and official ambiguity here are driven by the PRC's sensitivities, and do not represent any real commitment to the PRC's position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act
7u5432throw 7y ago
Petty would be China requesting Apple to hide the Japanese or American flag. Taiwan is the result of a civil war. No one says Americans are petty when they try to remove Confederate flags or when Germany bans the Nazi flag.
- brobinson 7y ago
  The ROC is the successor state to the Qing Dynasty. It acquired Taiwan when the Japanese surrendered it at the end of WW2. The PRC is the result of the civil war. The ROC never stopped existing nor did it start to exist as the result of the civil war.
espadrine 7y ago
> Is it simply a reminder to their people of who's in charge, at this level of pettiness? Most countries have petty border disputes. A famous country occupies territory in Cuba where it built a military prison. Cuba claims that the military presence is occupation of territory it rightfully owns. The famous country refuses to leave; it claims it only leases it based on a hundred-year-old document, and sends $4k checks yearly. Cuba denies, and refuses to cash the checks.
- untreasure 7y ago
  China decided to take control of Hong Kong based on a hundred year old document.
  - chrischen 7y ago
    Control was taken from China in the first place.
    - nickv 7y ago
      Which china? If the world was truly fair and honored the original signatories, it'd have gone back to the ROC and not the PRC. But it didn't because of might is right. I saw you made a comment earlier that both countries say "China" on their passports missing the point of this whole conflict. I think you should spend at least an hour reading about the history of this conflict (not through China's censored Internet).
  - hajile 7y ago
    A document signed with Taiwan instead of POC I would add.
- hajile 7y ago
  That's hardly an accurate telling. Cuba started a war for independence. The US sunk their own ship, the USS Maine to get an excuse to go to war (according to the Northwoods document declassified in 1998). This kicks off the Spanish-American war where Teddy Roosevelt rises to prominence (the perhaps biggest point of note was the butchering of whole villages, mass rapes, and what were essentially concentration camps in the Philippines). After liberating Cuba, the US government drafted the Platt Amendment as conditions for giving up the Cuban territory they had won from Spain. There were 7 conditions and one of those was the establishment of Guantanamo Bay. Fidel Castro and his chief gestapo butcher Che Guevara overthrow the previous government and then proceed to break most of the other conditions (though it could be argued that the US should have exercised article 3 and prevented the coup). Cuba later argues that the Vienna convention on treaties overrules the previous agreement, but the Vienna convention is explicitly non-retroactive (and more to the point, agreements due to a war are by their very nature coercive). It could be argued that the US created an excuse for war isn't very savory and most Americans of the time would have opposed involvement if an honest case had been made (I agree with this). If they had not, it's most likely that Cuba would have remained a Spanish colony and that point is immaterial. International law doesn't leave room for "pettiness" in this case. If the US were trying to pretend the Cuban government didn't exist and was trying to force non-US entities to comply with that non-reality, that go far beyond petty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Guantanamo_Bay_during_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Guan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

duxup 7y ago

I think it is petty. At the same time it's a good gauge for them to figure out what else they can do. Start with "hey man don't show that one pic" and the company figures "it's one pic, whatever we're not really compromising our values". A few more steps and then it seems less dramatic when it comes to "give us that information on that one user"... and so on. Personally I would expect an external social credit score coming soon too. It doesn't have to be all encompassing like the social credit score, but good luck getting a job with a company who wants to work with China if you're on the list...

goodluckchuck 7y ago
It also tells China how useful Apple is to US intelligence efforts. Setting aside the financial aspect, if Apple is unwilling to make a stand here, then they can infer that Apple is not willing to lose access to the market over this. If they push further and further in a "measured" approach, they can detect resistance. If Apple gets close to the point where they are willing to fight / bail. They it's likely because the situation is getting to the point where its a losing deal. By knowing the costs they impose, they can measure the value to Apple. By controlling for the financial aspect (which they can calculate based on production costs + sales), they can figure out a rough value of the intel and it's nature. Of course, that's assuming Apple acts rationally, which would be ill-advised.
awayfromhomenow 7y ago
Pretty scary thought, but progress being what it is, I don't see anything blocking it. I'm sure they already decline to do business with anyone that is vocally critical of China, or for example, highly complementary of the Dali Lama.
- president 7y ago
  Happened just yesterday after GM of the Houston Rockets spoke out *for the HK protests: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/business/houston-rockets-nba-china-daryl-morey/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/business/houston-rockets-nba-... EDIT: s/against/for/
  - jaynetics 7y ago
    *for
  - 7u5432throw 7y ago
    At least he didn’t kneel during the anthem!
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>A few more steps and then it seems less dramatic when it comes to "give us that information on that one user"... and so on. That has already happened. Only instead of handing over data on specific users upon request, Apple has simply handed over all iCloud data of all its (mainland) Chinese users to a government owned company: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351
diminoten 7y ago
This is a fallacy, stop with this kind of logic. At whatever point where the requests become unreasonable is the point at which to raise issue, not because of some arbitrary "precedent setting" bullshit. The frog, in reality, just jumps out of the pot when the water gets too hot.
- pjlegato 7y ago
  If most people operated rationally, it would be correct to disregard slippery slope arguments as fallacies when analyzing the spread of ideas in society. However, most people do not operate rationally most of the time -- they use rough heuristics and perceived social signaling of others to arrive at (usually irrational) conclusions about most issues. Empirically, slippery slopes have always been an extremely common way change is driven in mass social thinking. This has been formalized as the "Overton window": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
  - diminoten 7y ago
    I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not true or real in the sense that the counter-argument is entirely effective. Specifically, "When that thing you're worried about actually comes up, then we'll decide what to do." Saying, "We're still three steps from my issue but this thing that, in and of itself I have no problem with, can't happen because it might lead to the thing I have a problem with." is not a valid argument. To try and bring it back into focus, it's a real problem that this "one pic" isn't being shown. It's not a slippery slope conversation, because we're already at the thing I/we have a problem with. No need to argue the "this paves the way for worse things" because this is the worse thing! We're here!
__m 7y ago
Well if the NSA gets access why not opening up to other governments?

hatsunearu 7y ago

I think the fact that they have so much power that they can micromanage incredibly petty things is indicative that CCP has way too much power.

president 7y ago

They do it because it works. Combine censorship with a populace that is largely taught not to exercise critical thinking and you get China. Many of my Chinese colleagues who did not know about Nazi concentration camps, let alone the concentration camps that are currently running in their own country today.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
Mmm, yeah, lack of critical thinking combined with a nationalist, "we're number one" media environment. We would never be like that.. I mean, we're better than them. We're number one.

maweki 7y ago

I think most people on Hacker-News would know that Taiwan exists, even though a flag is missing on their phone. I think for the general population in the US or Europe that's not so clear. If one would never hear about Taiwan, would we really "know" it exists?

have_faith 7y ago
> If one would never hear about Taiwan, would we really "know" it exists? It's a sort of reverse branding exercise. If you can reduce exposure as much as possible there's not going to be a lot of sentiment for supporting the cause. What would be of Palestine today without the exposure that has been directed at it.
- maweki 7y ago
  It's not like Israel is - not talking about the truth of that claim here - denying the very existence of their neighbouring states. On the contrary, palestine and part of the palestine people are branded as great evil. Being branded as _anything_ is being "known". Famously or infamously.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> I think most people on Hacker-News would know that Taiwan exists I frequently come across, in America, people who are genuinely surprised that Taiwan is a sovereign state.
- oasisbob 7y ago
  Are you sure they don't just disagree with your use of the word sovereign? I find it a strange way to describe the ROC and Taiwan. Without a clear territory under exclusive control, recognition from other governments, or independence from the mainland, what's so sovereign about it?
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > Are you sure they don't just disagree with your use of the word sovereign? Yes, when people debate Taiwan’s sovereignty (for, independent foreign relations and a military, against, limited recognition) they understand the local context. That there is legitimate dispute with respect to its status is news to a surprising number of Americans.

thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago

China is showing the ability to control one of the world's largest, and most advanced companies. It isn't petty–it is scary. The U.S. and others have sold their soul to the devil for $299 flat screen tvs.

blotter_paper 7y ago
As if the US hadn't sold their soul already? :/ I'm not trying to downplay the horrors of China, but let's not act like the US had clean hands before importing bulk electronics.
- gtirloni 7y ago
  Always this same comment when anyone points the finger at China.
  - jaynetics 7y ago
    The comment is just pointing out to the OP that any moral bankruptcy of the US can most certainly not be blamed on China.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    The comment I was replying to implicitly suggested the US had a "soul" prior to engaging in business with China, I wasn't the one who brought up the US. If I had brought up the US out of the blue I'd agree that it was an irrelevant whataboutism, but in this context I feel it was entirely appropriate and on topic.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
  I'm not sure the average American benefited as directly to the atrocites of the past. The U.S. simply cannot change course without a serious alteration of the the ethos of the country.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    Oh we definitely have, everyone benefitted massively from the "manifest destiny" attitude behind the many atrocities committed against the native Americans. It's also not our fault, infar as we didn't literally pull any triggers. We're probably still complicit to some degree, however, by our general lack of support for reparation actions.

oconnor663 7y ago

Imagine that the war of 1812 had resulted a complete British/Canadian conquest of the US, which lasted for the most of the 19th century. Then imagine that Florida had successfully seceded from the US after WWII and joined the Soviet Union, along with all of Canada. Then finally imagine that the Soviet Union won the Cold War and has been the sole world superpower for the last thirty years. How would we feel, in that world, if the US government wanted to censor people mentioning Florida? Of course there would be complicated questions about whether that censorship was ethical or helpful, and about the government's real motivations for proposing it. But I think it would be clear to everyone involved that "kindergarten levels of pettiness" wasn't the right starting point for understanding those motivations.

frozenport 7y ago
Not complicated, we've never sensored the names of our enemies, at all.
Analemma_ 7y ago
Tell your bosses at the Ministry of Culture that trying to use Britain and the United States as analogies to the situation with Taiwan is going to backfire on you. At this point, Taiwan is fully-independent with its own national identity, and so saying they need to reunify with China is as ridiculous as asking Americans to "reunify" with the UK. It's not gonna happen, at least not voluntarily.
yellowarchangel 7y ago
I don't think censoring facts is ever anything but black and white. The fact that Taiwan exists, Hong Kong exists, Falun Gong, Tibet... These are all real things. There shouldn't ever be a reason to hide the fact that they exist no matter if todays reality wasn't todays reality.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Facts are rarely black and white. Look at USA reporting about Venezuela or Cuba. It's factual, yet it also implicitly takes sides. Which facts? How are they presented?

adrianmonk 7y ago

Personally, I wouldn't use the word petty because I think it suggests that the motivation is basically about childish insecurity and that there isn't a deliberate rationale behind it. Instead, I think China does this sort of thing to control discourse and/or to send constant reminders that certain lines should not be crossed or there will be consequences. Both are bad things, but they are different types of bad thing.

dmix 7y ago
Censorship has a natural way of forever expanding and broadening in scope. Often because it’s the only power some groups can exert on others (in this case China's gov to western companies) so they push it as far as they can into the realm of ridiculousness. Plus people get job promotions or feel-good emotions about "doing something". Eventually you run out of legitimate things to ban so you expand the scope. Then you can start banning people who complain about bannings, which naturally generating groups with victim complexes warranting more bannings, etc. This is not unique to China.

vkou 7y ago

This level of pettiness is very much the international norm for territorial and sovereignty disputes. The only newsworthy thing is that China's a big enough market that it can compel vendors to comply.

headsupftw 7y ago

The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan as a country. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations. Apple's revenue in Taiwan is peanuts compared to that of mainland China. The list goes on.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
The US used to recognise the government as the government of the whole of China and the communists as insurgents, with Taiwan holding the Chinese seat in the UN. Obviously, at some point realpolitik caught up and they reversed their stance, though they continue to help Taiwan because... more realpolitik.
jrockway 7y ago
We might not officially recognize them as a country, but we do have a law called the "Taiwan Relations Act". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act
umvi 7y ago
Trump enraged China when he tweeted that he talked to "the President of Taiwan" though, so clearly most people in the US think of Taiwan as being separate from China
brobinson 7y ago
The US has also never recognized Taiwan as being part of the PRC. I'm not even sure why you're bringing this up in relation to the parent's comment.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan as a country. That means little. The US has de-facto diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and has made official commitments to its defense against threats (which realistically could only ever come from the PRC), such as selling it arms. The weirdness and official ambiguity here are driven by the PRC's sensitivities, and do not represent any real commitment to the PRC's position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

7u5432throw 7y ago

Petty would be China requesting Apple to hide the Japanese or American flag. Taiwan is the result of a civil war. No one says Americans are petty when they try to remove Confederate flags or when Germany bans the Nazi flag.

brobinson 7y ago
The ROC is the successor state to the Qing Dynasty. It acquired Taiwan when the Japanese surrendered it at the end of WW2. The PRC is the result of the civil war. The ROC never stopped existing nor did it start to exist as the result of the civil war.

espadrine 7y ago

> Is it simply a reminder to their people of who's in charge, at this level of pettiness? Most countries have petty border disputes. A famous country occupies territory in Cuba where it built a military prison. Cuba claims that the military presence is occupation of territory it rightfully owns. The famous country refuses to leave; it claims it only leases it based on a hundred-year-old document, and sends $4k checks yearly. Cuba denies, and refuses to cash the checks.

untreasure 7y ago
China decided to take control of Hong Kong based on a hundred year old document.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Control was taken from China in the first place.
  - nickv 7y ago
    Which china? If the world was truly fair and honored the original signatories, it'd have gone back to the ROC and not the PRC. But it didn't because of might is right. I saw you made a comment earlier that both countries say "China" on their passports missing the point of this whole conflict. I think you should spend at least an hour reading about the history of this conflict (not through China's censored Internet).
- hajile 7y ago
  A document signed with Taiwan instead of POC I would add.
hajile 7y ago
That's hardly an accurate telling. Cuba started a war for independence. The US sunk their own ship, the USS Maine to get an excuse to go to war (according to the Northwoods document declassified in 1998). This kicks off the Spanish-American war where Teddy Roosevelt rises to prominence (the perhaps biggest point of note was the butchering of whole villages, mass rapes, and what were essentially concentration camps in the Philippines). After liberating Cuba, the US government drafted the Platt Amendment as conditions for giving up the Cuban territory they had won from Spain. There were 7 conditions and one of those was the establishment of Guantanamo Bay. Fidel Castro and his chief gestapo butcher Che Guevara overthrow the previous government and then proceed to break most of the other conditions (though it could be argued that the US should have exercised article 3 and prevented the coup). Cuba later argues that the Vienna convention on treaties overrules the previous agreement, but the Vienna convention is explicitly non-retroactive (and more to the point, agreements due to a war are by their very nature coercive). It could be argued that the US created an excuse for war isn't very savory and most Americans of the time would have opposed involvement if an honest case had been made (I agree with this). If they had not, it's most likely that Cuba would have remained a Spanish colony and that point is immaterial. International law doesn't leave room for "pettiness" in this case. If the US were trying to pretend the Cuban government didn't exist and was trying to force non-US entities to comply with that non-reality, that go far beyond petty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Guantanamo_Bay_during_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Guan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment