3 ms·

Some elaborate technical trade barrier? I think that is giving them too much credit. This is thinking from a military apparatus stuck in the 1950es.

red_trumpet 2y ago
Maybe not planned as a barrier, but effectively being one now? So this could be a reason why not to revert it.
- throwaway4good 2y ago
  Once you make something a standard it is hard to get rid of it even if there is an obvious better approach. Mapping is explicitly regulated so no need for an indirect barrier. AFAIK it is the same other places. If a Chinese company wanted to do an extensive commercial map of the US it would face all sorts of regulative hurdles.
masklinn 2y ago
> Some elaborate technical trade barrier? I think that is giving them too much credit. One-way knowledge flows is an ubiquitous and consistent facet of china's commercial policies.
nikisweeting 2y ago
> Promote the development of surveying and mapping in the service of national economic construction. It was very transparently an economic and technical development policy from the start, it was never intended as a military policy to hinder enemy mapping ability. They do similar information control across many other industries besides maps. The CCP is very good at gatekeeping access to foreign/uncensored information through a few state-owned enterprises, then metering it out as they see fit for economic progress.
barrkel 2y ago
China has been for some time a mercantile state that believed trade surplus and subsidising local production would create geopolitical strategic outcomes in its favour. It's a bit less like that now as Xi drifts into a more personal dictatorship.
dahart 2y ago
No need to speculate. The reasons for it were stated explicitly, as the article mentions. They are, briefly, to “promote mapping” for “national economic construction”, “national defense”, and “social development”.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  To be fair, they say that about literally every initiative they undertake.
tivert 2y ago
> Some elaborate technical trade barrier? I think that is giving them too much credit. > This is thinking from a military apparatus stuck in the 1950es. Even if it started like that, I wouldn't be surprised if they now appreciate the unintended consequence of it serving as a "elaborate technical trade barrier."

red_trumpet 2y ago

Maybe not planned as a barrier, but effectively being one now? So this could be a reason why not to revert it.

throwaway4good 2y ago
Once you make something a standard it is hard to get rid of it even if there is an obvious better approach. Mapping is explicitly regulated so no need for an indirect barrier. AFAIK it is the same other places. If a Chinese company wanted to do an extensive commercial map of the US it would face all sorts of regulative hurdles.

masklinn 2y ago

> Some elaborate technical trade barrier? I think that is giving them too much credit. One-way knowledge flows is an ubiquitous and consistent facet of china's commercial policies.

nikisweeting 2y ago

> Promote the development of surveying and mapping in the service of national economic construction. It was very transparently an economic and technical development policy from the start, it was never intended as a military policy to hinder enemy mapping ability. They do similar information control across many other industries besides maps. The CCP is very good at gatekeeping access to foreign/uncensored information through a few state-owned enterprises, then metering it out as they see fit for economic progress.

barrkel 2y ago

China has been for some time a mercantile state that believed trade surplus and subsidising local production would create geopolitical strategic outcomes in its favour. It's a bit less like that now as Xi drifts into a more personal dictatorship.

dahart 2y ago

No need to speculate. The reasons for it were stated explicitly, as the article mentions. They are, briefly, to “promote mapping” for “national economic construction”, “national defense”, and “social development”.

Workaccount2 2y ago
To be fair, they say that about literally every initiative they undertake.

tivert 2y ago

> Some elaborate technical trade barrier? I think that is giving them too much credit. > This is thinking from a military apparatus stuck in the 1950es. Even if it started like that, I wouldn't be surprised if they now appreciate the unintended consequence of it serving as a "elaborate technical trade barrier."