5 ms·

There is rumor Bitmain (creaters of Antminer, see Ant Financial aka Alipay) was really owned by Jack Ma. Now everything that was Jack Ma is now owned by CCP I w

There is rumor Bitmain (creaters of Antminer, see Ant Financial aka Alipay) was really owned by Jack Ma. Now everything that was Jack Ma is now owned by CCP I would bet Bitmain is the CCP.

dman 7y ago
Any pointers on why / how everything that was owned by Jack Ma is owned by CCP?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Jack Ma is on the record that this is nonsense: https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing-forced-him-out-1537280485 https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing... Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'. That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
    - mikekchar 7y ago
      These kinds of characterisations frustrate me. It's a horrible simplification that leads one to a whole set of conclusions that are probably way off target. No complex society runs without rules. By and large, if members of the society do not follow those rules then the result is chaos. Clearly, China is not a lawless state where people do whatever they choose and the strongest one wins. It is a country with real laws and and vast majority of people need to follow those laws. These laws are, of course, not applied universally. However, we can point to examples of this non-universality of law in every single country on Earth. The question is the extent of that non-universality. The other thing that's important to realise is that the Chinese government is incredibly complex internally. There isn't some Bond-like villain stroking his white cat all day and issuing decrees. It's a massive beaurocracy. Politics are crazy. The totalitarian state does not act as a single will -- it's a massive system of infighting and people trying to get the upper hand. Within that system, each of the players will be using their legal system against one another. It really isn't the case that there is any one entity that's just making up the rules as they go along and that can do whatever they want with impunity (as your posting implies to me). So, I'm inclined to lean towards believing a more complex reality than "they forced him to say that".
      - droopyEyelids 7y ago
        I think you're totally wrong. China is not a nation of laws the way the US or European countries strive to be. It's a different philosophy. They have laws, but the laws are not supposed to be supreme over the rulers. And there are TONS of examples of official lies, especially on the subject of the ownership and control of large enterprises.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        Here in NL our laws are also not supreme of the rulers. Frustrating but true and as much as I would like to believe that in a court of law our king would be held to the same standard as I would be I'm just about 100% sure that that would not be the case. Worse still, there is this file called 'crimes committed by the royal family' that is classified until 100 years after their death. This is why to this day we don't know the exact details of Bernhard van Oranje's many escapades and crimes, some of which were quite significant and yet ended up covered up. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld#Lockheed-affaire https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld... The combination of politicians and structural lying is unfortunately not limited to China either.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - webpaymentsguy 7y ago
        When I've heard people question or say there is no rule of law in China, usually it's followed up with how their court system isn't independent of their political system by design, not that it's lawless/a free for all for the CCP. Not that I disagree with a large chunk of what you said either, but it's just not hyperbole that China has no rule of law per a common definition of the word because of party and worker judicial supremacy. Rule of law definition: the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. Three Supremes: http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b8%89%e4%b8%aa%e8%87%b3%e4%b8%8a/ http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b...
mperham 7y ago
First Russia with nginx just a few days ago, now this. I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.
- geogra4 7y ago
  As if any other country is better.
  - blake1 7y ago
    Surely you’re trolling. This is not the place for it because, by any objective measure, despotic regimes are worse places to live.
    - james_s_tayler 7y ago
      Unless you're the despot. In which case they are the best place to live.
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        Except for the tendency for despots to be violently overthrown (relative to non despotic countries at least)
        james_s_tayler 7y ago
        Good while it lasts though.
      - pcwalton 7y ago
        Would you trade places with Kim Jong-un? I sure wouldn't.
  - throwaway122kk 7y ago
    First reply to a comment about Russia is a whataboutism, shock

There is rumor Bitmain (creaters of Antminer, see Ant Financial aka Alipay) was really owned by Jack Ma. Now everything that was Jack Ma is now owned by CCP I would bet Bitmain is the CCP.

dman 7y ago

Any pointers on why / how everything that was owned by Jack Ma is owned by CCP?

jacquesm 7y ago
Jack Ma is on the record that this is nonsense: https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing-forced-him-out-1537280485 https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing... Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
- gruez 7y ago
  >Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'. That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    These kinds of characterisations frustrate me. It's a horrible simplification that leads one to a whole set of conclusions that are probably way off target. No complex society runs without rules. By and large, if members of the society do not follow those rules then the result is chaos. Clearly, China is not a lawless state where people do whatever they choose and the strongest one wins. It is a country with real laws and and vast majority of people need to follow those laws. These laws are, of course, not applied universally. However, we can point to examples of this non-universality of law in every single country on Earth. The question is the extent of that non-universality. The other thing that's important to realise is that the Chinese government is incredibly complex internally. There isn't some Bond-like villain stroking his white cat all day and issuing decrees. It's a massive beaurocracy. Politics are crazy. The totalitarian state does not act as a single will -- it's a massive system of infighting and people trying to get the upper hand. Within that system, each of the players will be using their legal system against one another. It really isn't the case that there is any one entity that's just making up the rules as they go along and that can do whatever they want with impunity (as your posting implies to me). So, I'm inclined to lean towards believing a more complex reality than "they forced him to say that".
    - droopyEyelids 7y ago
      I think you're totally wrong. China is not a nation of laws the way the US or European countries strive to be. It's a different philosophy. They have laws, but the laws are not supposed to be supreme over the rulers. And there are TONS of examples of official lies, especially on the subject of the ownership and control of large enterprises.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Here in NL our laws are also not supreme of the rulers. Frustrating but true and as much as I would like to believe that in a court of law our king would be held to the same standard as I would be I'm just about 100% sure that that would not be the case. Worse still, there is this file called 'crimes committed by the royal family' that is classified until 100 years after their death. This is why to this day we don't know the exact details of Bernhard van Oranje's many escapades and crimes, some of which were quite significant and yet ended up covered up. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld#Lockheed-affaire https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld... The combination of politicians and structural lying is unfortunately not limited to China either.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - webpaymentsguy 7y ago
      When I've heard people question or say there is no rule of law in China, usually it's followed up with how their court system isn't independent of their political system by design, not that it's lawless/a free for all for the CCP. Not that I disagree with a large chunk of what you said either, but it's just not hyperbole that China has no rule of law per a common definition of the word because of party and worker judicial supremacy. Rule of law definition: the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. Three Supremes: http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b8%89%e4%b8%aa%e8%87%b3%e4%b8%8a/ http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b...

mperham 7y ago

First Russia with nginx just a few days ago, now this. I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.

geogra4 7y ago
As if any other country is better.
- blake1 7y ago
  Surely you’re trolling. This is not the place for it because, by any objective measure, despotic regimes are worse places to live.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    Unless you're the despot. In which case they are the best place to live.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Except for the tendency for despots to be violently overthrown (relative to non despotic countries at least)
      - james_s_tayler 7y ago
        Good while it lasts though.
    - pcwalton 7y ago
      Would you trade places with Kim Jong-un? I sure wouldn't.
- throwaway122kk 7y ago
  First reply to a comment about Russia is a whataboutism, shock