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

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.