3 ms·

Is it simply a case of a Chinese private company poaching talent? Or is the chinese govt explicitly providing incentives to the aforementioned pvt company which

by safog 6y ago

Is it simply a case of a Chinese private company poaching talent? Or is the chinese govt explicitly providing incentives to the aforementioned pvt company which they're using to poach employees? If it's the former, there's not much to see here, move on. Just capitalism at work. If it's the latter, I don't see how any pvt company can compete against an actor with such deep pockets.

Legogris 6y ago
Yeah, I'm fully aware that any large company based in China has involvement/influence from the Chinese government at least on the board-level. Even so, I find it bordering on misinformation to frame it as "China does [x]", which is a general trend in Occidental/Japanese/Korean media. When Microsoft did their release on considering acquisition of TikTok, explicitly stating it was after conversation with the POTUS, I never saw it framed as "The USA to acquire TikTok". We need to be able to have more nuanced headlines because frankly this amount of reduction is hurting more than it's helping in making readers understand the situation. As much as there is issues in the intertwine of corporate leadership and government, the PRC is not quite on the same level as the DPRK.
jtmarl1n 6y ago
You do realize a "private" company of this magnitude and strategic importance is deeply intertwined with the CCP government, right?
- free_rms 6y ago
  Also true in the US. Different in structure and rhetoric, but still basically true. If Boeing hires a German, it doesn't get framed as "US poaches from Germany", with a subheading of "a US-backed aerospace project" like in this article. They'd just say Boeing.
Udik 6y ago
The article mentions "Two Chinese government-backed chip projects". Of course there's nothing wrong with it, if the US government is messing with the market for geopolitical reasons, the Chinese government has all the interest and the legitimacy to intervene on the other side.

by safog 6y ago

Legogris 6y ago

Yeah, I'm fully aware that any large company based in China has involvement/influence from the Chinese government at least on the board-level. Even so, I find it bordering on misinformation to frame it as "China does [x]", which is a general trend in Occidental/Japanese/Korean media. When Microsoft did their release on considering acquisition of TikTok, explicitly stating it was after conversation with the POTUS, I never saw it framed as "The USA to acquire TikTok". We need to be able to have more nuanced headlines because frankly this amount of reduction is hurting more than it's helping in making readers understand the situation. As much as there is issues in the intertwine of corporate leadership and government, the PRC is not quite on the same level as the DPRK.

jtmarl1n 6y ago

You do realize a "private" company of this magnitude and strategic importance is deeply intertwined with the CCP government, right?

free_rms 6y ago
Also true in the US. Different in structure and rhetoric, but still basically true. If Boeing hires a German, it doesn't get framed as "US poaches from Germany", with a subheading of "a US-backed aerospace project" like in this article. They'd just say Boeing.

Udik 6y ago

The article mentions "Two Chinese government-backed chip projects". Of course there's nothing wrong with it, if the US government is messing with the market for geopolitical reasons, the Chinese government has all the interest and the legitimacy to intervene on the other side.