7 ms·

The way CCP influence works is through a legal requirement for firms to allow or establish internal CCP units inside their company, which are then officially re

The way CCP influence works is through a legal requirement for firms to allow or establish internal CCP units inside their company, which are then officially recognized and connected to the CCP. Since this is an alternate method for the company to interact with officials, through their own party member staff, it can become basically your company's representative with the CCP. The thing is though, the unit members are also still your employees with access to internal information. Since they serve two masters, the company can be tempted to elevate their status internally to improve how they represent the CCP on the other side. And the opposite can happen - employees can be hired with high CCP ranks so that when they join the unit their influence for the company will be stronger. "One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions." Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about. "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-...

pphysch 6y ago
Is this supposed to be surprising? Virtually every large corporation is going to have some synergy with its host country(s). For oversight, compliance, etc. Of course, this relationship is obfuscated in the US, but there is a well-known "revolving door" between Corporate HQs and Washington D.C. For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns. These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.
RavlaAlvar 6y ago
A picture that summarise this comment https://na.cx/i/YW5ziy9.jpg https://na.cx/i/YW5ziy9.jpg
- simias 6y ago
  Can you expand on the context behind this picture? In particular what is this flag exactly, it seems like a mash-up between the Chinese flag and a communist flag but I'm not sure what is the exact implication here. EDIT: oh that's the flag of the Chinese communist party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party For some reason I expected that they would just use the Chinese flag itself, since there's no plurality.
  - dhimes 6y ago
    That picture is a little suspicious. Look at them "holding" the top of the "flag."
    - hyperdimension 6y ago
      Can you clarify? The picture's a little small, but I don't think I'm picking up what you're alluding to.
      - ummonk 6y ago
        It definitely looks like they were holding up a posterboard and the flag has been photoshopped in.
      - dhimes 6y ago
        When I zoom in (ctrl+) it appears to me that the people across the top aren't actually holding the flag. The guy on our left is- with one hand, but the others don't seem to be (at least to me, but I'm no photoshop-spotter expert). That is, part of their hands doesn't seem to be blocked by the flag the way I would expect if they were holding it. The woman in red on our right also doesn't seem to be holding it. It's perhaps a cardboard sign or something? Maybe the picture of the flag was put over it? Again, I'm no expert but it looks off to me.
whoevercares 6y ago
It’s not a critical department at all —- major leadership doesn’t normally give it a shit. It’s just symbolic at most of the times
- biscottigelato 6y ago
  We give so much more slack when it's a company that supports a totalitarian regime. When it's Facebook which is subject to scrutiny of many major democratic governments and press, we gives it no slack. Ironic and funny.
  - bluesign 6y ago
    Facebook has very bad track record with privacy and abusing use data, tbh they are getting what they deserve. We are not giving a slack to a company that supports a totalitarian regime, if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too.
    - benrbray 6y ago
      > if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too. sure, I'm ok with that
  - ksk 6y ago
    Well, FB is disliked more because many well-meaning left leaning folks bought the "trump won because putin bought FB ads" argument.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Who is this 'we' we're talking about? Clearly the US government gives Facebook all of the slack (arguably since Facebook offers the US intelligence services a panopticon). The only people not giving Facebook slack are activists. And Tiktok, despite their US arm being a US company, essentially is facing the execution of their business at the hands of the US government unless they do a fire sale under duress.
tmotwu 6y ago
It's difficult to apply this argument consistently without claiming that any company who decides to operate in China is compromised. A great deal of American companies do operate in China and will be subject with the same legal requirements expected of domestic companies. Journalists may not, but many American business executives perfectly understand how it works. If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions. I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.
- munk-a 6y ago
  The act of being a "US Company" in the modern world is meaningless, every company that operates in the US is a US company and every company that operates in China is a Chinese company - that's the truest way to view things and it makes corporate nationality meaningless. The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits - a company might even consider hosting a "beauty contest" where they try to get cities to outbid each other in a sick game that deprives everyone of their tax revenue. Of course such an act (both on the company's side, and on the side of cities who decide to participate) is a clear signal of moral bankruptcy - but that's no surprise since America considers cheating other people to be the greatest virtue.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits So why is so much tech stuck on the west coast then? If it were that simple they'd have all moved (moved their operations and headcount) to lower tax areas by now.
    - creato 6y ago
      Haven't they? The whole point here is that where the HQ legally is located really has nothing to do with where the people actually are.
vmception 6y ago
> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.
- skybrian 6y ago
  But even if the sourcing isn’t ideal, you learned this somehow, right? Either through personal experience or reading it somewhere. If you don’t know how you learned it, how confident can you be that you understand what’s going on inside Chinese companies? And how can someone who reads your comment have any confidence in it? The comment you’re replying to links to a news article from Reuters that is apparently based on discussions with company officials. That’s probably as good as we are going to get.
  - vmception 6y ago
    > And how can someone who reads your comment have any confidence in it? By at least pretending it is valid and understanding that the reasons a source can't be provided is completely rational and having a discussion on that worldview instead of arguing flaws. This is a chronic issue on the internet: arguing flaws for no reason.
    - skybrian 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "valid." I think people can and should be kinder about asking, but it's always fair to ask "how did you learn that" if it's unclear. But saying you don't remember is a fair response, too.
- nxc18 6y ago
  IDK, if folks were being less lazy they could point to articles in common publications that detail this system. Link found via Google: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwicrOjIwrTrAhX0On0KHcKCB84QFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fbriefing%2F2020%2F08%2F15%2Fxi-jinping-is-trying-to-remake-the-chinese-economy&usg=AOvVaw1bH7Oc_dKecAWrbNI3lqPP https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
axaxs 6y ago
Serious question - are Taiwanese companies typically prone to this also, or does CCP mainly leave them alone?
- learc83 6y ago
  Why would Taiwanese companies be subject to this? Are you talking about Taiwanese companies operating in China, or are you under the impression that China actually controls Taiwan?
  - axaxs 6y ago
    The former, mainly. I'm thinking big companies like TSMC, Asus, etc, that likely have presence and operations in both.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
All this overlooks one simple principle. A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one. As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't. After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason. As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate. You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned. You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off. It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.
- AlexCoventry 6y ago
  Not to mention, it's such a bad look for a President to go after companies which have played a role in amplifying free speech which attacks the President himself (Sarah Cooper, the Tulsa rally fakeout.)
- fermienrico 6y ago
  While I conceptually agree, practically - this is a naive take on protecting self interests in an altruistic externalities where if you follow such leaders, the “hawks” amongst the “doves” will wipe out the entire population of doves. Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed. China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others. I admire your righteousness though.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
chrischen 6y ago
> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about. I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization. > "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about." I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  >> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery > I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior I'd have to agree, "rule of law" is one of those concepts that people are happy to agree is VERY IMPORTANT without worrying about whether they agree on what it means.

pphysch 6y ago

Is this supposed to be surprising? Virtually every large corporation is going to have some synergy with its host country(s). For oversight, compliance, etc. Of course, this relationship is obfuscated in the US, but there is a well-known "revolving door" between Corporate HQs and Washington D.C. For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns. These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.

RavlaAlvar 6y ago

A picture that summarise this comment https://na.cx/i/YW5ziy9.jpg https://na.cx/i/YW5ziy9.jpg

simias 6y ago
Can you expand on the context behind this picture? In particular what is this flag exactly, it seems like a mash-up between the Chinese flag and a communist flag but I'm not sure what is the exact implication here. EDIT: oh that's the flag of the Chinese communist party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party For some reason I expected that they would just use the Chinese flag itself, since there's no plurality.
- dhimes 6y ago
  That picture is a little suspicious. Look at them "holding" the top of the "flag."
  - hyperdimension 6y ago
    Can you clarify? The picture's a little small, but I don't think I'm picking up what you're alluding to.
    - ummonk 6y ago
      It definitely looks like they were holding up a posterboard and the flag has been photoshopped in.
    - dhimes 6y ago
      When I zoom in (ctrl+) it appears to me that the people across the top aren't actually holding the flag. The guy on our left is- with one hand, but the others don't seem to be (at least to me, but I'm no photoshop-spotter expert). That is, part of their hands doesn't seem to be blocked by the flag the way I would expect if they were holding it. The woman in red on our right also doesn't seem to be holding it. It's perhaps a cardboard sign or something? Maybe the picture of the flag was put over it? Again, I'm no expert but it looks off to me.

whoevercares 6y ago

It’s not a critical department at all —- major leadership doesn’t normally give it a shit. It’s just symbolic at most of the times

biscottigelato 6y ago
We give so much more slack when it's a company that supports a totalitarian regime. When it's Facebook which is subject to scrutiny of many major democratic governments and press, we gives it no slack. Ironic and funny.
- bluesign 6y ago
  Facebook has very bad track record with privacy and abusing use data, tbh they are getting what they deserve. We are not giving a slack to a company that supports a totalitarian regime, if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too.
  - benrbray 6y ago
    > if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too. sure, I'm ok with that
- ksk 6y ago
  Well, FB is disliked more because many well-meaning left leaning folks bought the "trump won because putin bought FB ads" argument.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Who is this 'we' we're talking about? Clearly the US government gives Facebook all of the slack (arguably since Facebook offers the US intelligence services a panopticon). The only people not giving Facebook slack are activists. And Tiktok, despite their US arm being a US company, essentially is facing the execution of their business at the hands of the US government unless they do a fire sale under duress.

tmotwu 6y ago

It's difficult to apply this argument consistently without claiming that any company who decides to operate in China is compromised. A great deal of American companies do operate in China and will be subject with the same legal requirements expected of domestic companies. Journalists may not, but many American business executives perfectly understand how it works. If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions. I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.

munk-a 6y ago
The act of being a "US Company" in the modern world is meaningless, every company that operates in the US is a US company and every company that operates in China is a Chinese company - that's the truest way to view things and it makes corporate nationality meaningless. The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits - a company might even consider hosting a "beauty contest" where they try to get cities to outbid each other in a sick game that deprives everyone of their tax revenue. Of course such an act (both on the company's side, and on the side of cities who decide to participate) is a clear signal of moral bankruptcy - but that's no surprise since America considers cheating other people to be the greatest virtue.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits So why is so much tech stuck on the west coast then? If it were that simple they'd have all moved (moved their operations and headcount) to lower tax areas by now.
  - creato 6y ago
    Haven't they? The whole point here is that where the HQ legally is located really has nothing to do with where the people actually are.

vmception 6y ago

> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.

skybrian 6y ago
But even if the sourcing isn’t ideal, you learned this somehow, right? Either through personal experience or reading it somewhere. If you don’t know how you learned it, how confident can you be that you understand what’s going on inside Chinese companies? And how can someone who reads your comment have any confidence in it? The comment you’re replying to links to a news article from Reuters that is apparently based on discussions with company officials. That’s probably as good as we are going to get.
- vmception 6y ago
  > And how can someone who reads your comment have any confidence in it? By at least pretending it is valid and understanding that the reasons a source can't be provided is completely rational and having a discussion on that worldview instead of arguing flaws. This is a chronic issue on the internet: arguing flaws for no reason.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "valid." I think people can and should be kinder about asking, but it's always fair to ask "how did you learn that" if it's unclear. But saying you don't remember is a fair response, too.
nxc18 6y ago
IDK, if folks were being less lazy they could point to articles in common publications that detail this system. Link found via Google: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwicrOjIwrTrAhX0On0KHcKCB84QFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fbriefing%2F2020%2F08%2F15%2Fxi-jinping-is-trying-to-remake-the-chinese-economy&usg=AOvVaw1bH7Oc_dKecAWrbNI3lqPP https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...

axaxs 6y ago

Serious question - are Taiwanese companies typically prone to this also, or does CCP mainly leave them alone?

learc83 6y ago
Why would Taiwanese companies be subject to this? Are you talking about Taiwanese companies operating in China, or are you under the impression that China actually controls Taiwan?
- axaxs 6y ago
  The former, mainly. I'm thinking big companies like TSMC, Asus, etc, that likely have presence and operations in both.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

All this overlooks one simple principle. A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one. As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't. After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason. As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate. You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned. You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off. It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.

AlexCoventry 6y ago
Not to mention, it's such a bad look for a President to go after companies which have played a role in amplifying free speech which attacks the President himself (Sarah Cooper, the Tulsa rally fakeout.)
fermienrico 6y ago
While I conceptually agree, practically - this is a naive take on protecting self interests in an altruistic externalities where if you follow such leaders, the “hawks” amongst the “doves” will wipe out the entire population of doves. Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed. China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others. I admire your righteousness though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

chrischen 6y ago

> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about. I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization. > "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about." I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).

thaumasiotes 6y ago
>> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery > I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior I'd have to agree, "rule of law" is one of those concepts that people are happy to agree is VERY IMPORTANT without worrying about whether they agree on what it means.