4 ms·

It’s not because western companies never do the wrong thing (ignoring the specifics of your example). They do and I specifically address this in the long form b

It’s not because western companies never do the wrong thing (ignoring the specifics of your example). They do and I specifically address this in the long form blog post I linked. They’re not comparable because the western companies are not doing this due to the threat of retaliation from their own government. There’s more nuance here (which I address in that blog post). I wrote that so I wouldn’t have to rewrite the same stuff every time this issue comes up. The reason I said it’s not comparable to companies operating in western democratic countries is because otherwise the first reply every time I write something like this is a false equivalence about how the “<insert western country here> is the same if not worse...” which is just not true.

BoorishBears 6y ago
It really isn't clear what kind of distinction you're trying to make. You replied to a post about companies trying to appease the CCP trying to imply that it's a problem with chinese companies trying to appease the CCP You've just been told western companies are also trying to appease the CCP. How is that not comparable? Somehow not being China-based gives you a pass to play the appeasement game?
- oefrha 6y ago
  > You've just been told western companies are also trying to appease the CCP. Sorry for having to state the obvious, but I never told them that, and I strongly suspect canceling a speaking engagement of a Palestinian terrorist (designated by the U.S.) after Jewish protests in the U.S. neither appeases nor angers China.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    The wording of your comment strongly implies otherwise, it wasn't past the point of being able to edit it I'd strongly suggest doing so for clarity > Ironically enough, YouTube and Facebook also censored the exact same event that sparked this later event. Reads like the Zoom event (later event) mentioned is the same topic as previously censored - But that's fine since Faceboom and Google very commonly _do_ go out of their way to appease the CCP, it'd be silly to imply otherwise when we've got - senators writing to Google about their censorship on behalf of the CCP (https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-demands-google-explain-continued-censorship-criticism-ccp https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-demands-google-...) - Google's Chinese ventures trickling down technology to their military (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3663852 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3663852) - Project Dragonfly... - Facebook formerly attempting to re-enter the Chinese market with additional censorship (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-idUSKBN13I03H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-idUSKBN13I...) Facebook tried and failed to appease the CCP for many years: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/17/mark-zuckerberg-signals-facebook-wont-return-china-calls-tech/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/17/mark-zucke... At the end of the day these companies are behemoths well beyond the point of having things like morals. They'll work with whoever they believe will work with them.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I actually agree with you and mention dragonfly as an example specifically in my blog post. I think it's wrong when western companies appease the CCP too. The Tiananmen Square example is better than the messier one in the article because it's a clear case of a government leveraging its power to cover up its own abuse. The distinction I was trying to make is about the company being based in a non-democratic country. In the west companies are choosing to appease the CCP for their own self-interest and access to the Chinese market (which is wrong), but companies operating out of China are forced to comply if they want to exist at all. It's not possible for Chinese companies to exist and make the right choice, so they're going to make the wrong choice (and we'd be better off avoiding them entirely). The distinction is between the governments and how they operate which makes the pressure on the companies different. It's not to excuse western companies from making similarly bad concessions. In the end dragonfly was abandoned by Google. Zoom can never choose to ignore the CCP's censorship requests and remain a company while continuing to operate with the majority of its devs in China. Zoom knows this and doesn't care.
fvdessen 6y ago
> They’re not comparable because the western companies are not doing this due to the threat of retaliation from their own government. Iranians are banned from using some western apps by threat of the American government.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Yes, that's national sovereignty. A better example is when the FBI seizes webhosts whose users are associated with illegal activity.
oefrha 6y ago
Sorry and feel free to flag, but I’m afraid discussing topics of censorship and government retaliation especially surrounding terrorism with <removed> leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Edit: Decided to use better judgement and remove the reference to parent’s employer, which is against guidelines. Sorry dang.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Suit yourself - you should want people who give a shit about this kind of stuff working in the highest risk areas where they can have the most impact. Being skeptical of motivated reasoning is fine, but dismissing the content of arguments entirely because of (a likely wrong) impression of where they work is not.

BoorishBears 6y ago

It really isn't clear what kind of distinction you're trying to make. You replied to a post about companies trying to appease the CCP trying to imply that it's a problem with chinese companies trying to appease the CCP You've just been told western companies are also trying to appease the CCP. How is that not comparable? Somehow not being China-based gives you a pass to play the appeasement game?

oefrha 6y ago
> You've just been told western companies are also trying to appease the CCP. Sorry for having to state the obvious, but I never told them that, and I strongly suspect canceling a speaking engagement of a Palestinian terrorist (designated by the U.S.) after Jewish protests in the U.S. neither appeases nor angers China.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  The wording of your comment strongly implies otherwise, it wasn't past the point of being able to edit it I'd strongly suggest doing so for clarity > Ironically enough, YouTube and Facebook also censored the exact same event that sparked this later event. Reads like the Zoom event (later event) mentioned is the same topic as previously censored - But that's fine since Faceboom and Google very commonly _do_ go out of their way to appease the CCP, it'd be silly to imply otherwise when we've got - senators writing to Google about their censorship on behalf of the CCP (https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-demands-google-explain-continued-censorship-criticism-ccp https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-demands-google-...) - Google's Chinese ventures trickling down technology to their military (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3663852 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3663852) - Project Dragonfly... - Facebook formerly attempting to re-enter the Chinese market with additional censorship (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-idUSKBN13I03H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-idUSKBN13I...) Facebook tried and failed to appease the CCP for many years: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/17/mark-zuckerberg-signals-facebook-wont-return-china-calls-tech/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/17/mark-zucke... At the end of the day these companies are behemoths well beyond the point of having things like morals. They'll work with whoever they believe will work with them.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I actually agree with you and mention dragonfly as an example specifically in my blog post. I think it's wrong when western companies appease the CCP too. The Tiananmen Square example is better than the messier one in the article because it's a clear case of a government leveraging its power to cover up its own abuse. The distinction I was trying to make is about the company being based in a non-democratic country. In the west companies are choosing to appease the CCP for their own self-interest and access to the Chinese market (which is wrong), but companies operating out of China are forced to comply if they want to exist at all. It's not possible for Chinese companies to exist and make the right choice, so they're going to make the wrong choice (and we'd be better off avoiding them entirely). The distinction is between the governments and how they operate which makes the pressure on the companies different. It's not to excuse western companies from making similarly bad concessions. In the end dragonfly was abandoned by Google. Zoom can never choose to ignore the CCP's censorship requests and remain a company while continuing to operate with the majority of its devs in China. Zoom knows this and doesn't care.

fvdessen 6y ago

> They’re not comparable because the western companies are not doing this due to the threat of retaliation from their own government. Iranians are banned from using some western apps by threat of the American government.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Yes, that's national sovereignty. A better example is when the FBI seizes webhosts whose users are associated with illegal activity.

oefrha 6y ago

Sorry and feel free to flag, but I’m afraid discussing topics of censorship and government retaliation especially surrounding terrorism with <removed> leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Edit: Decided to use better judgement and remove the reference to parent’s employer, which is against guidelines. Sorry dang.

fossuser 6y ago
Suit yourself - you should want people who give a shit about this kind of stuff working in the highest risk areas where they can have the most impact. Being skeptical of motivated reasoning is fine, but dismissing the content of arguments entirely because of (a likely wrong) impression of where they work is not.