3 ms·
> ... or, more likely, they consider U.S. surveillance unintrusive and Chinese surveillance intrusive. Of course. What's the point of surveillance if you're no
by kvuj 7mo ago
> ... or, more likely, they consider U.S. surveillance unintrusive and Chinese surveillance intrusive.
Of course. What's the point of surveillance if you're not going to use it to enforce dogma? I think you can reasonably evaluate a country's surveillance by looking at the pettiness of the arrests & censorship they make.
See this chinese tech reviewer[1] being bullied by the government for putting a spotlight on chinese phone makers cheating about benchmarks. I'm not sure the US is at this point yet...
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1rfw6oj/hardware_reviewer_geekerwan_possibly_censored_by/ https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1rfw6oj/hardware_...
- deaux 7mo ago> See this chinese tech reviewer[1] being bullied by the government for putting a spotlight on chinese phone makers cheating about benchmarks. I'm not sure the US is at this point yet... Plenty of signs point towards this being a case where it wasn't the government, so it's not a good example. Instead it looks to have been the tech companies filing takedowns and threatening lawsuits. Especially when it comes to China, this is a big difference. You should've pointed towards more clear-cut examples like Naomi Wu and Peng Shuai. But those cases are less unthinkable in the US, and it should be uncontroversial to say that it's what's been worked towards.
- kvuj 7mo agoGeekerwan confirmed that it was a "greater force", not a manufacturer.