12 ms·
WeChat suspends new user registration for security compliance
- throwaway4good 5y ago"Shares in Tencent plunged 9.0% in Hong Kong on Tuesday amid widespread market jitters over Chinese regulatory crackdowns on high-growth sectors, including online platforms and, most recently, private tutoring. Hong Kong's benchmark Hang Seng Index (.HSI) fell 4.2%." Fascinating how the Chinese authorities seem to be regulating the these companies with complete disregard on how the stock market might react.
- woxko 5y agoFascinating that they care more about national security (in their own way) than feeding the already fat shareholders as the US would do.
- starfallg 5y ago>Fascinating how the Chinese authorities seem to be regulating the these companies with complete disregard on how the stock market might react. The stock market reaction is a part of the show. They aren't banning things despite it, they are actually flexing to show authority (albeit in a crude manner).
- itake 5y agoyeah, I wonder if they do it b/c: 1. the og investors cashed out. leaving retail holding the bag. 2. they buy the stock at a discount
- paganel 5y agoDon't think the Chinese government cares about purchasing any Chinese company's stock at a discount, if the need arises they can of course nationalise it almost on the spot.
- atatatat 5y agoChinese government individuals may, especially lower tier ones.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- elliekelly 5y agoI think they do it because information (and control over that information) is more valuable to them in the long run than whatever economic/financial gains they might sacrifice.
- itake 5y agoThey could of added the regulation at a slower pace instead of pulling the plug on everyone.
- paganel 5y ago> with complete disregard on how the stock market might react. I personally regard this as a positive fact, and I'm generally against the policies of the current Chinese authorities. The stock market should not be the be-all and end-all of our modern society.
- fighterpilot 5y agoIt's bad because the "stock market" that people focus on are typically indices of only the largest companies, such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. If the concern is around performance of these particular indices, it can lead to more policies that favor large business at the expense of the small.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- aerosmile 5y agoDoes it make sense to have strong principles and not be guided by financial incentives alone? Sure. But would it make more sense to have a solid regulatory framework to start with, as opposed to being loosey goosey for a very long time and then course correcting in a way that evaporates billions in value overnight from domestic and foreign investors? Countries and companies have a lot in common. Consider this analogy: would you want to join a company that has an excellent business model and is poised for strong growth, but the CEO is a nut case and has done several mass layoffs that have completely blindsided internal and external people? I, for one, am happy that China is tripping over itself and will give us a bit more room to breathe and figure out our own mess, so that when the inevitable takeover of Taiwan and all the other shit storms happen in the future, we'll be at least a tiny bit more prepared.
- birdyrooster 5y agoAll we can do now is hope the Taiwanese don't ratify their constitution to get rid of their claims to mainland China. If they can manage to stay the course, the US will remain unentangled with Taiwan's fate.
- malwarebytess 5y agoI think that may be part of the point. In matters of state, in China, markets react to policy not the other way around. In the west markets direct policy through a kind of indirect or virtual parliament. Whether China's approach is wise or not...I don't know.
- elefanten 5y agoWhat examples do you have of this "indirect parliament" effect? Yes various interests lobby the government all the time. But what are the best/clearest examples of the market tail wagging the policy dog?.
- malfist 5y agoThere's a whole host of examples. Pretty much anything that asks the government to accept risk or loss of a company but doesn't share profits are good examples. Net neutrality is a great example. Paying telecoms to build infrastructure that they don't build and just pocket. The case in Ohio recently where their energy company bribed officials to give them a 1 billion dollar bail out. Another is any regulation that's not done for the greater good. Like in my state you have to be a licensed bartender and have graduated from a bartending school. Guess who pushed for that requirement? It wasn't the public.
- curiousgal 5y agoInsert here any president boasting about the Dow Jones hitting a new high while they're in office
- mc32 5y agoNaively, it looks like the CCP sees the influence and heft US tech exercises on the US population and world at large. The CCP will forgo economic might (in this sector) for social stability and control every time. They do not want these titans to have more power or influence than they have so they rein them in and let them know who holds the straps.
- sudosysgen 5y agoI don't think this is so naive. Jack Ma, for example, disappeared last year shortly after a speech where he called the finance regulators incompetent and tried to use his fortune to bypass them. What probably scared the Chinese government is that he got close to getting away with it. If I recall correctly, that was the flash point for the Chinese Big Tech crackdown.
- systemvoltage 5y agoYou have it backwards. Jack Ma was scared and emerged in a video tape out of nowhere. Why would CCP be scared? That doesn’t make any sense.
- sudosysgen 5y agoHe didn't seem scared to me, and the "video tape out of nowhere" was a speech at the Bund Financial Summit in Shanghai : https://interconnected.blog/jack-ma-bund-finance-summit-speech/ https://interconnected.blog/jack-ma-bund-finance-summit-spee... Why would one of the richest men in China openly defying the most basic financial regulations, and then trying to strong-arm the regulators by IPOing as fast as possible before regulations could be finalized, thus making them hurt a lot more people, and almost getting away with it, scare the CCP? I don't know, you ask me. I have no idea how an authoritarian government could be threatened by one of the most powerful people in their society openly calling them incompetent, defying them, and trying to make laws ineffective. None at all.
- jeswin 5y agoOne scenario would have been Jack Ma (along with family, of course) being outside China wile making the statement. Given his reach and popularity, that would have been a serious blow to CCP PR. He'd lose most of his billions, but this risk existed. Most regimes and communist systems are paranoid. They'll make sure there wouldn't be another Jack Ma.
- varispeed 5y ago> on how the stock market might react. The stock market is just a facade, a theatre, to appear to the West that Chinese economy is somewhat legitimate. In reality everything is in CPC hands and all these companies only appear to be private.
- partsKnown 5y agoYep, the Chinese market is not market in the sense people are not free to buy and sell based on market influences but party demands.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoGood. Regulators shouldn't care about stock prices at all. They should always do the right thing and let the market crash if necessary.
- xxpor 5y agoThat's absurd that they shouldn't pay ANY attention. You can go too far in both directions. The stock price is an indirect indicator of the material impact of the regulation.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoRegulators should pay absolutely zero attention to stock market. If the stock price crashes, it's because the company's value was derived from the exploitation and abuse that regulations are supposed to prevent. They were never supposed to be that valuable in the first place. Regulations should cause as much damage to stock price as possible. We should measure the effectiveness of regulations by how much they tank the stock of affected companies. Real change often affects the profits of corporations. If nothing happens, then I doubt the new rules are actually gonna change anything for the better.
- xxpor 5y agoI think you're saying the purpose of regulations should be to hurt the stock price of companies. That's seriously crazy. Why not write a regulation simply outlawing public stock markets? The purpose of regulations are to make people's lives better. That could mean protecting them from harms, or preventing other undesirable outcomes. There should be a cost benefit analysis applied there. Of course some things are hard to measure so there will be arguing on the margins. The place I do agree with you is that if a company's business is doing regulation compliance (see: Intuit), then their viability shouldn't be a factor at all.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoI'm saying regulation is likely to be ineffective if it doesn't hurt stock prices.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hklutryhgg 5y agoThere is speculation that China is clamping down on soft tech (social apps, ...) to encourage people to work on hard tech (hardware, ...). China's semiconductor company spiked today on the stock market.
- joyeuse6701 5y agoWe (the west) may see this as shocking, but I believe this isn't equivalent to the U.S. gov't doing something that would crash the NYSE or NASDAQ. If the Chinese gov't did something that undermined real estate value, where most Chinese citizen's savings are parked, that would be more comparable.
- rsynnott 5y ago> Fascinating how the Chinese authorities seem to be regulating the these companies with complete disregard on how the stock market might react. I mean, that's fairly normal, surely? _Any_ aggressive regulatory action is going to upset the stock market; it regulatory bodies had to take the stock market's delicate feelings into account they might as well shut their doors.
- neolog 5y ago> with complete disregard on how the stock market might react Even better, they're intentionally redirecting finances away from companies they don't like.
- cyanydeez 5y agothe stock market in china is not a free market.
- beaunative 5y agoLast time I checked, plenty people on HN claiming those enterprises are branch of the government `since they operate in China`, which I still do consider to be one of the most ignorant and arrogant comment on Chinese businesses. If governments can actually be that successful in dicating and operating businesses, then the communism world would never have failed so miserably, the control the Chinese government has over companies is really no more than that of the United States governments (from federal to local), just look at how the federal governments banned all kinds of business activites, how the `do no evil` company bidding for defense contract. It's a pity many of the readers live in the imaginative world where the US is free of all evils, with China being the opposite.
- xwolfi 5y ago.
- paganel 5y ago> retail investor trusting your savings to the success of modern Chinese companies. To be fair retail investors shouldn't do that with their savings anyway (I mean, savings meant for old age or for the children's education).
- xwolfi 5y ago.
- eric-hu 5y agoI'm not sure why your comments were flagged. They were not only reasonable, but pretty informative to me.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- secondaryacct 5y agoI deleted the content and put a . because it was about my employer and critical of a regulator. I figured I might as well not. Probably flagged for that reason. It was maybe too informative for my taste lol Weirdly Im prevented to post with the same account.
- eric-hu 5y agoAhh understood, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining!
- partsKnown 5y agoHN is getting to be that way. My guess is Dang has the flag set to go off after some # of "flags". An in flux of new uses who can't downvote might flag what they don't like. More new people combined with a flag trigger set too low comments and posts disappear quicker and more than ever.
- kaycebasques 5y agoWeChat registration was a fascinating experience. You download the app and then someone who is already in the system has to verify you via QR code scan. That's how it was when I visited a couple years ago, at least.
- rwmj 5y agoOr to be more precise, it works for a few days, then abruptly locks you out until a friend with a China phone number and bank account vouches for you.
- fortuna86 5y agoAnd forget getting the weChat payment functionality working with a foreign bank.
- xrikcus 5y agoIt works pretty reliable with discoverbank cards, but that's because they are unionpay compatible. It was a complete mess getting the app to the point where it would let me use it for payments at all, though.
- fortuna86 5y agoWhen I tried to troubleshoot getting a bank linked to the account, WeChat suspended the account for "suspicious behavior". That was that.
- radmuzom 5y agoNot necessarily "China phone number". I live in Malaysia and WeChat is very popular here, even among Malays. One Malaysian friend vouched for my account.
- vmception 5y agoIts different for every country combination and at different times depending on how Tencent/CCP feels
- partsKnown 5y agoAnyone with WeChat installed, can you help me try to sign up. This is what it says when I try to: https://imgur.com/a/cuYsnpU https://imgur.com/a/cuYsnpU
- m3kw9 5y agoLooks like tech will inevitably one day circumvent all the barriers China has set up. It seem there is a panic with in the govt as they notice the trend. Delays the inevitable, but for how long?
- dalbasal 5y agoHello 2003. I remember when the "great firewall" seemed like a joke, as did digital copyright compliance, online censorship or basically any means of controlling the internet. Information wanted to be free, and neither man nor king could stand in its way. Maybe that is true, and the last 15 years have been an aberration. But... that would mean a reversal of a trend, not a continuation of the current one. To me it seems likely (careful with inevitabilities) that the internet will increasingly become a way of controlling people.
- grishka 5y agoThe problem is excessive centralization. The internet used to be millions of servers owned by independent people and organizations. That was, for all intents and purposes, uncontrollable. Now much of the internet is comprised of giant platforms that are a whole lot easier to coerce to comply with even most nonsensical regulations.
- pope_meat 5y agoThe cloud brought a storm with it, and it's drowning the decentralized nature of the internet. Convenience is what will hang us, but hey, it was very convenient.
- ren_engineer 5y agobased on trends of Western companies bending over backwards to fulfil China's whims, I'd say the odds are more likely this gets exported around the world
- websites2023 5y agoHow many native Chinese don’t have WeChat already? WeChat has 1.2B users. China has 1.4B people. I suspect the rest are too old or too young. Basically, it’s impossible to operate in a city without it.
- infofarmer 5y ago50 thousand people are born in China every day. It's not like the world is static.
- websites2023 5y agoWell, luckily babies are are too young to use WeChat and won’t be old enough by early August for this to impact them.
- rahimnathwani 5y agoWhat about the 50k people/day being both 13 years ago? Will they register earlier than they would have done, seeing August as a deadline?
- websites2023 5y agoThe registration is cut off for now. The point I was making was that this probably doesn’t have much impact on the usage. If you didn’t have it before, you’re probably reliant on someone else with it and that’s just getting extended by a few weeks.
- mahkeiro 5y agoSeems that only applies to China weixin accounts. The rest of the world can still create an international wechat account.
- cunthorpe 5y agoIf you ever tried using WeChat you’ll find that signing up was already a ludicrous experience. I contacted several other WeChat users who tried to vouch for me in South East Asia and none of the accounts were good enough for WeChat. Absolute nonsense.
- hamburgerwah 5y agoThere seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread that there can be chinese companies that are somehow separate from the government. All chinese companies are defacto part of the government. The CEO of all chinese enterprises is Xi Jinping.
- websites2023 5y agoNo idea why you’re being downvoted. This is 100% correct, China requires party members to be on the boards of companies and Xi is the head of the party.
- president 5y agoNot saying its true but this is the reason a lot of people suspect the same thing is happening in the US under the guise of diversity organizations that suddenly started popping up in most major corporations over the last few years.
- onethought 5y agoOnly some companies… logically assess what you are saying: for all business, government has board representation!? How would that scale? Where would the government get that kind is workforce?
- nerbert 5y agoHow does it scale? Membership (2021) 95,148,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party Seems to scale pretty well.
- onethought 5y agoThey are communist party members. Not Board members of businesses... That number includes anyone from a high school kids to Taxi Drivers. Are you suggesting that High school kids and taxi drivers would be effective board members?
- prasenjit_pro 5y agoAnother new string play started with these. It will impact the market huge time.
- xyzzy21 5y agoThe Chinese government also forced a removal of WeChat from online stores in China. Consensus in some quarters is that a Maoist crackdown akin to the cultural revolution may be starting up. Other companies have been hammered such as all cram schools have been "told" they will not only not be allowed to issue stock (IPO) but possibly no longer allowed to be for-profit but must be non-profit now. https://www.newsdirectory3.com/china-bans-cram-school-business-foreign-investment-and-initial-public-offering-bloomberg/ https://www.newsdirectory3.com/china-bans-cram-school-busine... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/china-is-said-to-mull-turning-tutoring-firms-into-non-profits https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/china-is-...
- ilamont 5y agoUnder the CCP, the "rights" pendulum swings wildly for society and the economy. Some policies and edicts seem well thought out, others seem impulsive and extreme with little regard to long-term consequences or the impact on China's people. 100 flowers/Great Leap Forward. Cultural Revolution/Deng reforms. Tiananmen/hypernationalism. Tech has enjoyed a relatively open hand for two decades. Now the fist is closed and comes smashing down. Justification for clampdowns, crackdowns and purges are really about CCP leaders using all tools at their disposal to maintain a hold on power.
- onethought 5y agoYou quote policies from at least 30 years ago? So by comparison we are taking the highly successful policies of Reagan and Nixon… perhaps with the Japanese internment camps and dropping nuclear weapons thrown in? (For a similar time period in the US)
- blakespot 5y agoAh, not the same as venerable WeeChat. #IRC