WeChat suspends new user registration for security compliance(reuters.com)
reuters.com
WeChat suspends new user registration for security compliance
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tencents-wechat-suspends-new-user-registration-cites-technical-upgrade-2021-07-27/
154 comments
> 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.
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.
It'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.
very large percentages of the country have stock portfolios, at the very least via a company 401k.
when stocks are up they feel richer and spend more money at stores etc.. (the wealth effect)
whether or not you agree with this approach, the fed and congress care alot about the stock market for good reason.
i just wish it wasn’t all they cared about
when stocks are up they feel richer and spend more money at stores etc.. (the wealth effect)
whether or not you agree with this approach, the fed and congress care alot about the stock market for good reason.
i just wish it wasn’t all they cared about
[deleted](1)
The stock market should not be the be-all and end-all of our modern society.
And a repressive Communist government should be?
And a repressive Communist government should be?
Naively, 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.
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.
The problem is that the CCP has nothing to replace this cultural vacuum with. They want to legislate a return to "old" (post 1949) values by banning foreign tutors, suppressing dissent on WeChat and Weibo, and doing generally authoritarian shit to encourage nationalism. Meanwhile, young, educated people almost exclusively consume the cultural products of the West, Korea, and Japan. And they find the North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.
>> The problem is that the CCP has nothing to replace this cultural vacuum with.
I am no expert, but I disagree and I think this is the kind of thinking that has failed the west for the last thirty years. I think the idea started with the fall of the Soviet Union. That culture and ideology was bankrupt. So a lot of western people thought that when there was a free exchange of ideas with China, the Chinese would eventually reject the CCP.
My experience of people in China-- admittedly a long time ago-- was they are generally very patriotic or nationalistic, like Americans. They appreciate the CCP and what it has accomplished. They have a strong domestic arts industry making movies, books, games. Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.
Anyway, that is the way I am thinking about these days. But I could be very wrong and I would love to hear from people who are from or spend time in China.
I am no expert, but I disagree and I think this is the kind of thinking that has failed the west for the last thirty years. I think the idea started with the fall of the Soviet Union. That culture and ideology was bankrupt. So a lot of western people thought that when there was a free exchange of ideas with China, the Chinese would eventually reject the CCP.
My experience of people in China-- admittedly a long time ago-- was they are generally very patriotic or nationalistic, like Americans. They appreciate the CCP and what it has accomplished. They have a strong domestic arts industry making movies, books, games. Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.
Anyway, that is the way I am thinking about these days. But I could be very wrong and I would love to hear from people who are from or spend time in China.
I think you're broadly correct. With regard to China, a lot of people's understanding is driven in large part by wishful thinking, which is a serious weakness and vulnerability.
> Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.
I think it's important to note those views are in large part created an reinforced a deliberate propaganda program. For instance, I believe one of the ideas the Chinese government pushes is the Chinese people "aren't ready" for democracy (while carefully preventing anything that could make them ready). When educated Chinese people were better exposed to ideas about liberal democracy, they were very clear that they wanted it (e.g. 80s leading up to Tiananmen Square, the Liberal Studies curriculum in Hong Kong), but the government has learned from those episodes and has taken action to get the ideological results it desires.
> Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.
I think it's important to note those views are in large part created an reinforced a deliberate propaganda program. For instance, I believe one of the ideas the Chinese government pushes is the Chinese people "aren't ready" for democracy (while carefully preventing anything that could make them ready). When educated Chinese people were better exposed to ideas about liberal democracy, they were very clear that they wanted it (e.g. 80s leading up to Tiananmen Square, the Liberal Studies curriculum in Hong Kong), but the government has learned from those episodes and has taken action to get the ideological results it desires.
The concern I have with China, right now, is that I suspect liberal democracy in China will be in favor of someone like Donald Trump, who will then have the power to turn it into dictatorship and this time 70% of the population will vote in favor of the Chinese Trump. Or likely a civil war would break out.
The ideological difference within China is not anything less then that of America. The gay marriage issue along could leave the country 80% to 20%, with the liberals on the 20% side. Yet in a authoritorian state like China, I don't think I've heard anything amount to hate crimes like that in the US, A lot of them would be scared to come out, but no one would be murdering them just for their identity. I think the issue with electoral democracy is that every issue is public, in constant debate, and people's political identity became so important to some that they are willing to kill.
People, expats especially, who live in affluent areas of China often lack the knowledge necessary to understand the less-developed areas of China. Like how people in California lack understandings of Alabama.
The ideological difference within China is not anything less then that of America. The gay marriage issue along could leave the country 80% to 20%, with the liberals on the 20% side. Yet in a authoritorian state like China, I don't think I've heard anything amount to hate crimes like that in the US, A lot of them would be scared to come out, but no one would be murdering them just for their identity. I think the issue with electoral democracy is that every issue is public, in constant debate, and people's political identity became so important to some that they are willing to kill.
People, expats especially, who live in affluent areas of China often lack the knowledge necessary to understand the less-developed areas of China. Like how people in California lack understandings of Alabama.
[deleted]
> When educated Chinese people were better exposed to ideas about liberal democracy, they were very clear that they wanted it
This falls flat for me. So the implication is that there are no educated Chinese today with exposure to liberal democracy? I think we take for granted the supposed superiority of a system that empirically has delivered many recent failures.
This falls flat for me. So the implication is that there are no educated Chinese today with exposure to liberal democracy? I think we take for granted the supposed superiority of a system that empirically has delivered many recent failures.
Sure, liberal democracies have had many recent failures, but they're still the most prosperous societies on a per-capita basis by a gigantic margin. If an authoritarian or non-democratic country can achieve over $40,000 GDP per capita, then we can revisit.
If you go by PPP, top 5 per capita territories are Luxembourg, Singapore, Ireland, Qatar, Macau. That's 3/5 non democracies. Rank 6-10 is Switzerland, Norawy, US, Brunei, HK. 5/10 non democracies.
Many systems can become prosperous if relatively small and sufficiently aligned to US foreign policy to preserve the hegemony. Democracies that don't will get crushed / contained inspite of "democratic peace". The real disruption of PRC's rise is an alternate system that could create a prosperous or even moderately wealthy society, despite US supremency.
Many systems can become prosperous if relatively small and sufficiently aligned to US foreign policy to preserve the hegemony. Democracies that don't will get crushed / contained inspite of "democratic peace". The real disruption of PRC's rise is an alternate system that could create a prosperous or even moderately wealthy society, despite US supremency.
that's true. but none of this is happening in a vacuum. liberal democracies are also the ones trying to change or destroy non-democratic regimes by force. imo you can sum up everything evil China is accused of, and it would not come close to what we pulled in South America, the Middle East, and Asia
I'm all for a fair comparison. And as someone who currently benefits from Western ideals of personal liberties, I'd be happy to see it proven that they are superior. But let's make it fair
I'm all for a fair comparison. And as someone who currently benefits from Western ideals of personal liberties, I'd be happy to see it proven that they are superior. But let's make it fair
> imo you can sum up everything evil China is accused of, and it would not come close to what we pulled in South America, the Middle East, and Asia
I know you said Asia and that includes China, but Western countries (and Japan) did similar things to China in the 19th and 20th centuries:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
I know you said Asia and that includes China, but Western countries (and Japan) did similar things to China in the 19th and 20th centuries:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
That's maybe true when young people in China first learned western democracy ideas. Nowadays I think most of educated Chinese believe democracy is not suitable for China. They didn't get the whole picture of western world, but who does nowadays. They see signs of culture revolution in western social movements and rejected those wholeheartedly.
> Nowadays I think most of educated Chinese believe democracy is not suitable for China.
Isn't that exactly 1) what the Communist Party wants them to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote?
Isn't that exactly 1) what the Communist Party wants them to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote?
I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote.
Can they? The US government has very limited "hard" control over what information is published, e.g. there are no banned books in the US and it would be impractical for the government to try to impose any such ban, in stark contrast to the PRC.
the methods are clearly not as explicit and the US tolerates more diversity of thought on a lot of topics, but it absolutely exerts control over ideas it deems important. it's pretty hard to come out of our education system thinking poorly of ancient greece and rome, the liberal tradition, etc.
also note that the bar for success is a lot lower when up to 49% dissent is acceptable
also note that the bar for success is a lot lower when up to 49% dissent is acceptable
>>> I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote.
>> I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote.
> Can they? The US government has very limited "hard" control over what information is published, e.g. there are no banned books in the US and it would be impractical for the government to try to impose any such ban, in stark contrast to the PRC.
Yeah, the massive amount of information control in China has no parallel in the US:
1. Almost all media is state-owned, and those that aren't are required to follow state directives about what and what not to cover (https://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/directives-from-the-mini...)
2. Huge numbers of people employed to implement social media censorship (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/29/the-great-firew...: "A considerable amount of censorship is conducted through the manual deletion of posts, and an estimated 100,000 people are employed by both the government and private companies to do just this.")
3. Ditto for books and other publications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_China#Mainl...: apropos quote "In 2021, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China announced a ban on books in school libraries that engage in 'Western veneration'").
4. Requirements that every single website account, network connection, and phone number be traceable to an particular individual's ID (typically implemented by requiring phone number validation). This encourages self-censorship (https://www.lawfareblog.com/shrinking-anonymity-chinese-cybe...).
5. The actual 50 cent party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
6. Etc.
Sure you can mad-lib a Western country into my comment, but the comparison is facile.
>> I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote.
> Can they? The US government has very limited "hard" control over what information is published, e.g. there are no banned books in the US and it would be impractical for the government to try to impose any such ban, in stark contrast to the PRC.
Yeah, the massive amount of information control in China has no parallel in the US:
1. Almost all media is state-owned, and those that aren't are required to follow state directives about what and what not to cover (https://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/directives-from-the-mini...)
2. Huge numbers of people employed to implement social media censorship (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/29/the-great-firew...: "A considerable amount of censorship is conducted through the manual deletion of posts, and an estimated 100,000 people are employed by both the government and private companies to do just this.")
3. Ditto for books and other publications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_China#Mainl...: apropos quote "In 2021, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China announced a ban on books in school libraries that engage in 'Western veneration'").
4. Requirements that every single website account, network connection, and phone number be traceable to an particular individual's ID (typically implemented by requiring phone number validation). This encourages self-censorship (https://www.lawfareblog.com/shrinking-anonymity-chinese-cybe...).
5. The actual 50 cent party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
6. Etc.
Sure you can mad-lib a Western country into my comment, but the comparison is facile.
[deleted]
Assume for the moment that you're American, liberal, white collar and live in one of the more affluent blue coastal states. Now imagine that 75% of your countrymen are rabbid red state Trump supporters, of low education, get most of their news and information from low quality Facebook shares, and are clearly misinformed about the world in many ways. Now imagine that the Federal government is much more powerful than the States, and that representative democratic policy will mostly reflect the will of Trump True-believers, the people fully supportive of the Capitol riots. How principled are you really about the rule of democracy?
Now I'm not suggesting that this is a good analogy for the Chinese situation, nor that this is how highly education urban Chinese think about democracy (though I do know a few who do seem to think that way). What I am suggesting is that democracy is not always and everywhere the slam dunk win that some Western liberals appear to think it is.
I write this as a second generation immigrant raised since elementary school with Western democratic values. I do believe that despite some flows it is the best system for most of Europe and the US. My parents fled the madness of the Mao CCP regime, and they've probably seen the worst side of the CCP. Yet they are ambivalent whether a US-style democracy today would be superior for the Chinese citizens to the current CCP.
Now I'm not suggesting that this is a good analogy for the Chinese situation, nor that this is how highly education urban Chinese think about democracy (though I do know a few who do seem to think that way). What I am suggesting is that democracy is not always and everywhere the slam dunk win that some Western liberals appear to think it is.
I write this as a second generation immigrant raised since elementary school with Western democratic values. I do believe that despite some flows it is the best system for most of Europe and the US. My parents fled the madness of the Mao CCP regime, and they've probably seen the worst side of the CCP. Yet they are ambivalent whether a US-style democracy today would be superior for the Chinese citizens to the current CCP.
> Assume for the moment that you're American, liberal, white collar and live in one of the more affluent blue coastal states. Now imagine that 75% of your countrymen are rabbid red state Trump supporters, of low education....How principled are you really about the rule of democracy?
Though implicit in that fantasy is that, without democracy, the blue-state liberal gets to impose his will on the Trumpers. Something that can keep someone like that committed to democracy is (for instance) the thought that the alternative is could actually be a never-ending dictatorship of Mitch McConnell, beating humanity with its chin waddle forever.
> Now I'm not suggesting that this is a good analogy for the Chinese situation, nor that this is how highly education urban Chinese think about democracy (though I do know a few who do seem to think that way). What I am suggesting is that democracy is not always and everywhere the slam dunk win that some Western liberals appear to think it is.
Are you saying that educated urban Chinese are hesitant about democracy because they get to vicariously impose their will (or something close enough to it) on the rabble via the CCP?
Though implicit in that fantasy is that, without democracy, the blue-state liberal gets to impose his will on the Trumpers. Something that can keep someone like that committed to democracy is (for instance) the thought that the alternative is could actually be a never-ending dictatorship of Mitch McConnell, beating humanity with its chin waddle forever.
> Now I'm not suggesting that this is a good analogy for the Chinese situation, nor that this is how highly education urban Chinese think about democracy (though I do know a few who do seem to think that way). What I am suggesting is that democracy is not always and everywhere the slam dunk win that some Western liberals appear to think it is.
Are you saying that educated urban Chinese are hesitant about democracy because they get to vicariously impose their will (or something close enough to it) on the rabble via the CCP?
> Though implicit in that fantasy is that, without democracy, the blue-state liberal gets to impose his will on the Trumpers. Something that can keep someone like that committed to democracy is (for instance) the thought that the alternative is could actually be a never-ending dictatorship of Mitch McConnell, beating humanity with its chin waddle forever.
Right. I don't think it's a given that democracy is demonstrably superior to meritocracy or even aristocracy or enlightened despotism in delivering better outcomes for the majority of people (working definition, GDP/capita, or some honest measure of life satisfaction).
> Are you saying that educated urban Chinese are hesitant about democracy because they get to vicariously impose their will (or something close enough to it) on the rabble via the CCP?
I'm saying that I do know some educated urban Chinese who seemed to believe that, at least the post-Mao CCP leadership probably did a better job than a counterfactual popular elected leadership. I have no idea how representative those few opinions are of the general Chinese urban population. I don't know the country or politics well enough to agree or dispute such views either, but I can certainly see where they're coming from. Mobocracy by the uneducated masses was also one of the largest worries of the American Founding Fathers if I recall my history correctly. Bear in mind that the urbanization rate in China ("blue states" from the educated Chinese perspective) barely reached 30% until 2000 or so. And some Chinese friends summarized Mao-China as basically mob-rule by the peasants.
Right. I don't think it's a given that democracy is demonstrably superior to meritocracy or even aristocracy or enlightened despotism in delivering better outcomes for the majority of people (working definition, GDP/capita, or some honest measure of life satisfaction).
> Are you saying that educated urban Chinese are hesitant about democracy because they get to vicariously impose their will (or something close enough to it) on the rabble via the CCP?
I'm saying that I do know some educated urban Chinese who seemed to believe that, at least the post-Mao CCP leadership probably did a better job than a counterfactual popular elected leadership. I have no idea how representative those few opinions are of the general Chinese urban population. I don't know the country or politics well enough to agree or dispute such views either, but I can certainly see where they're coming from. Mobocracy by the uneducated masses was also one of the largest worries of the American Founding Fathers if I recall my history correctly. Bear in mind that the urbanization rate in China ("blue states" from the educated Chinese perspective) barely reached 30% until 2000 or so. And some Chinese friends summarized Mao-China as basically mob-rule by the peasants.
+1. When you take what you're saying with the parent above you, Xi is also pulling all the state media strings to play up the less-corrupt benevolence thing - using it to consolidate power. Check out this recent good article about their extrajudicial 'repatriations' which has examples of the bragging in their government controlled media about it (kidnappings).
It's both trying to show less corruption and simultaneously scaring everyone away from dissent. Gross but seems powerful.
https://www.propublica.org/article/operation-fox-hunt-how-ch...
It's both trying to show less corruption and simultaneously scaring everyone away from dissent. Gross but seems powerful.
https://www.propublica.org/article/operation-fox-hunt-how-ch...
There's an interesting phenomenon, specific to US tech, where there are a ton of Chinese who quietly have a problem with the recent anti-china rhetoric, but they're not going to put a target on their back over it, they stay quiet. How do you even engage with someone who doesn't speak a word of Chinese and is so confident that they know all about China?
Meanwhile, the anti-china folks blithely go on about how much better freedom of expression is in America, and assume that silence means they are right.
Meanwhile, the anti-china folks blithely go on about how much better freedom of expression is in America, and assume that silence means they are right.
I feel like a lot of frustration in the west are due to a lack of voice from within China, who can explain the context and give their point of view. Instead all you get are these disjointed news and headlines without any depth to it. People then make assumptions based on it.
Well, yes and no. Go to reddit for example, you can find endless amounts of people explaining the Chinese perspective and getting voted down and accused of being wumaos, and you'll get banned for it in many places too. At some point I imagine it gets tiring.
Isn't that the problem though? How do you know you're getting a genuine opinion when there's a public, broad, and well funded astroturf campaign? What even is a genuine opinion or free thought when the government employs such ruthless censorship?
If you're not open to other opinions, you will hear none, and that's entirely on you.
In extremely broad strokes, China has gone from colonized and poor to powerful and rich. Is it so hard to believe that the average Zhao is pretty OK with things?
In extremely broad strokes, China has gone from colonized and poor to powerful and rich. Is it so hard to believe that the average Zhao is pretty OK with things?
It's not a question of belief, it's more a question of who is speaking - him or the state propaganda? We had the same in communist Eastern Europe - you publicly said things that you thought were ok and assumed anyone with ears can be an agent of the regime. Privately you might have thought something very different, but why end up in prison and cause problems for your family?
China is not an Eastern European "old country" that got broken and remains broken because communism. IMO I find an interesting divergance in opinions immigrants of ex-soviet bloc countries and China, the former mostly has experience of decline and bad times to draw from, the latter largely supports and are of proud of modern PRC, many have aspirations to return / sea tutural back to live and work. You'll find many Chinese people genuininely defend PRC (and CCP) precisely because China isn't a failed communist Eastern European country.
The point is we have no way to distinguish what is "genuine" in this case. Compounding that problem is the current massive Chinese propaganda offensive, which makes it even harder to believe any positive opinions. Especially when at the same time we can see what is happening in HK, for example.
There is a 90% chance there are ruthless, public, broad and well funded astroturf campaign for and against most of your impactful opinions.
You have to take it with détachement. I have enough Chinese friends living away to know that opinions often aren't that different living here vs in China. Censorship isn't that effective in the era of anyone easily getting a VPN.
You have to take it with détachement. I have enough Chinese friends living away to know that opinions often aren't that different living here vs in China. Censorship isn't that effective in the era of anyone easily getting a VPN.
>a public, broad, and well funded astroturf campaign?
Abroad where 50c doesn't operate? Reality is there aren't any substantial large scale astroturf campaigns from PRC according to recent foreign influence reports from western social media companies (see Twitter, Facebook). There's hand full of practice bit increasingly competent script kiddie tier campaigns with limited exposure on subject matters most westerners don't care about but CCP does (i.e. GuoWenGui). Even less so per studies before 2020 that only found anti-China social media manipulation that targeted PRC netizens who jumped the firewall. The real brainwashing is thinking Chinese opinion can't be "genuine opinion or free thought" because ruthless western manufactured consent created a misinformation enviroment that insinuates PRC opinions are totally controlled even abroad. There's plenty of genuine PRC supporters in the diasphora, and plenty of opponents as well. The former are usually the educated folks who immigrated in the last 10-30 years with duo perspective on Chinese/western models, largely normal people. The latter are dissidents, groups marginalized by CCP, who only has snapshot / out of date / time bubble memory of PRC. Incidentally they're the ones creating epochetimes, hanging with insurrectionist, and trying to convince western audiences that being pro PRC can't be a genuine opinion.
Here's the 2021 RAND report on PRC disinformation from a week ago:
* China has not carried out substantial disinformation attacks on other U.S. allies or partners (such as Singapore, the Philippines, or Japan).
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4373z3.html
PRC information campaigns are being tested, they may target west one day. But the idea that PRC is astroturfing the west is the product of western astroturfing itself.
Abroad where 50c doesn't operate? Reality is there aren't any substantial large scale astroturf campaigns from PRC according to recent foreign influence reports from western social media companies (see Twitter, Facebook). There's hand full of practice bit increasingly competent script kiddie tier campaigns with limited exposure on subject matters most westerners don't care about but CCP does (i.e. GuoWenGui). Even less so per studies before 2020 that only found anti-China social media manipulation that targeted PRC netizens who jumped the firewall. The real brainwashing is thinking Chinese opinion can't be "genuine opinion or free thought" because ruthless western manufactured consent created a misinformation enviroment that insinuates PRC opinions are totally controlled even abroad. There's plenty of genuine PRC supporters in the diasphora, and plenty of opponents as well. The former are usually the educated folks who immigrated in the last 10-30 years with duo perspective on Chinese/western models, largely normal people. The latter are dissidents, groups marginalized by CCP, who only has snapshot / out of date / time bubble memory of PRC. Incidentally they're the ones creating epochetimes, hanging with insurrectionist, and trying to convince western audiences that being pro PRC can't be a genuine opinion.
Here's the 2021 RAND report on PRC disinformation from a week ago:
* China has not carried out substantial disinformation attacks on other U.S. allies or partners (such as Singapore, the Philippines, or Japan).
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4373z3.html
PRC information campaigns are being tested, they may target west one day. But the idea that PRC is astroturfing the west is the product of western astroturfing itself.
I strongly hold this skepticism of there being targeted CCP shills, including on HN. If true, that goes beyond censorship of their own citizens. How do you prove though. There has been some reporting about it, I remember one about their distributed mechanical turk-ified gamification of astro turfing basically.
And I think that not knowing is part of the value for them. The Putin way of power through questioning reality, just throw out lots of lies, deflect, scapegoat, whataboutism. Class troll behavior has invaded the real world.
I also see parallels in the US, at first from the extreme right 'media' just taking this bold faced bs approach and sadly it works.
And I think that not knowing is part of the value for them. The Putin way of power through questioning reality, just throw out lots of lies, deflect, scapegoat, whataboutism. Class troll behavior has invaded the real world.
I also see parallels in the US, at first from the extreme right 'media' just taking this bold faced bs approach and sadly it works.
Go one level deeper and ask why you're never exposed to that viewpoint.
Washington Post and NYT will happily run Adrian Zenz all day long, even though he's a right wing religious nut and they're secular liberals, but you never see them print the majority viewpoint of actual Chinese people.
Washington Post and NYT will happily run Adrian Zenz all day long, even though he's a right wing religious nut and they're secular liberals, but you never see them print the majority viewpoint of actual Chinese people.
>My experience of people in China-- admittedly a long time ago-- was they are generally very patriotic or nationalistic, like Americans. They appreciate the CCP and what it has accomplished. They have a strong domestic arts industry making movies, books, games. Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy.
Having been on the inside, it's not that they don't want a different system, it's that they see the real or perceived problems of our system as highlighted by their domestic media and generally from their point of view. This makes them substantially less enthusiastic than we think they would be.
The only way to convince them is to show them that liberal democracy does indeed yield better results, with people feeling more secure and leading happier lives. In order to do that we need to ensure that our democratic processes lead to solidarity and not division. That's why the last 4 years have been so damaging to our system, the fabric of the system has been damaged by extreme partisanship, without considering that standing together with our neighbours is in many cases more important than being 'right'.
Having been on the inside, it's not that they don't want a different system, it's that they see the real or perceived problems of our system as highlighted by their domestic media and generally from their point of view. This makes them substantially less enthusiastic than we think they would be.
The only way to convince them is to show them that liberal democracy does indeed yield better results, with people feeling more secure and leading happier lives. In order to do that we need to ensure that our democratic processes lead to solidarity and not division. That's why the last 4 years have been so damaging to our system, the fabric of the system has been damaged by extreme partisanship, without considering that standing together with our neighbours is in many cases more important than being 'right'.
I don't understand the premise that the Chinese need to be convinced that the system we live in is the better one. Can we not accept that they are happy with the choices they made, and that not everyone needs to live under a repressive capitalist system?
I think this position is very valuable. By far the best way for us to effect change in China politically, and every other major ideologically opposed nation, is to effect change at home, and be so sucessful that the superiority of our approach cannot be refuted.
Bonus point that there is a lot less chance of war this way.
Bonus point that there is a lot less chance of war this way.
> I think this position is very valuable. By far the best way for us to effect change in China politically, and every other major ideologically opposed nation, is to effect change at home, and be so sucessful that the superiority of our approach cannot be refuted.
I don't think so. Fixing domestic problems is a worthy goal, but it's wishful thinking to believe it will do anything to "effect change in China politically."
I don't think so. Fixing domestic problems is a worthy goal, but it's wishful thinking to believe it will do anything to "effect change in China politically."
Perhaps it won't, if things don't stop improving in China and we don't improve enough. But if that happens I don't see any way at all of changing things in China from our position.
For US it will. People in the US seldom think about just how powerful their media environment and general influence is. Like women have been sexually harassed since forever in China, and it's the #MeToo movement that led to a lot of the victim to stand up and people to support them.
Anecdotally, western democracy was seen as a means to an end for many “common folk Chinese”. The end is prosperity. Now that the prosperity gap has drastically closed (also there are more clear paths to prosperity), the desire has also dissipated. China has also seen a China-like society in Singapore achieve a very strong economic and social outcome with authoritarian government, so western style democracies aren’t the only “role model” so to speak anymore
I don't think Singaporean politics is particularly well regarded within China. In fact, it reflects the same issues as with the CCP and its authoritarian system. The Singapore system is seen as a necessary evil given the geopolitics of the region and the racial makeup of the city-state. The CCP is seen as a necessary evil to propel China into advanced economy status. This is just how things are.
Singaporean political academies trained 50K CCP cadres until recently. Their system is/was highly well regarded and emulated, but within the last decade CCP has evolved/developed beyond the Singaporean methods designed for small fish geopolitics. LKI was the preeminant statesmen that every CCP leader visited/consulted with personally, outside of state-to-state dialogue. I think Trumps America, drama HK in has turned more and more away from representative democracy. Western system in general started losing luster post 2007 GFC. Whatever model PRC will pursue in future, it's not going to look towards "declining west" until west sorts out it's issues.
The political element is hugely overblown as the training is mostly limited to mid-level cadres and in the areas of Managerial Economics and Public Administration. There's a reason why they are called the "Mayors' Class". It's also a top down policy, not the popular view.
I misread the original subject is on politics vs bureaucracy, in which case I agree.
I'm troubled that your comment was downvoted. It seems very reasonable. Thank you for posting.
Yup. People who get their news mostly from Western media might believe Chinese live in a repressive Orwellian hellscape, and conclude that if there is not widespread resentment against the CCP it must be because it's all suppressed. The truth is probably a lot more pedastrian: life in modern China is not bad at all, both in comparison to their own history and compared to other large countries in the world (NOT compared to exlusively rich countries). So a large part of the population is probably at least somewhat content with the current government.
Life is probably far from pleasant if you're an Uyghur or a Falung Gong, but the overwhelming majority of the population is not too concerned with their lot. The CCP clearly does suppress dissent, but it can be targetted to minority opinions.
The median Chinese citizen doesn't just see Western Europe and the USA and concludes that democracy leads to great results. (S)he can also see that it did not appear to bring great prosperity to India, Brazil or Russia.
Life is probably far from pleasant if you're an Uyghur or a Falung Gong, but the overwhelming majority of the population is not too concerned with their lot. The CCP clearly does suppress dissent, but it can be targetted to minority opinions.
The median Chinese citizen doesn't just see Western Europe and the USA and concludes that democracy leads to great results. (S)he can also see that it did not appear to bring great prosperity to India, Brazil or Russia.
One your comment on a "strong domestic arts industry", I would recommend this video.
"The Curious Story of China's Indie Gaming Scene"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrTZ_UeUxM
"The Curious Story of China's Indie Gaming Scene"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrTZ_UeUxM
Thanks, that was interesting.
Re-frame the question: if they could have western style liberal democracy without any bloodshed, would they? The answers you're seeing might be tainted with knowing the path to democracy would be painful, and all else equal, that pain is worse than the current power structure.
There is without any bloodshed and without any bloodshed. The Soviet Union fell down with very little bloodshed, but around 7 million people died from the economic disruption, and the democracy that came from it was rapidly compromised both by local oligarchs and foreign powers in most of it.
I don't think the Chinese would want a fall of the USSR scenario, however little the bloodshed is. Economic disruption can kill a lot of people and there is not even any guarantee the next system would stand on it's own.
I don't think the Chinese would want a fall of the USSR scenario, however little the bloodshed is. Economic disruption can kill a lot of people and there is not even any guarantee the next system would stand on it's own.
> There is without any bloodshed and without any bloodshed. The Soviet Union fell down with very little bloodshed, but around 7 million people died from the economic disruption, and the democracy that came from it was rapidly compromised both by local oligarchs and foreign powers in most of it.
But you're comparing apples and oranges.
Russia was still a command economy when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and went straight to democracy and capitalism at the same time with very little transition (IIRC, mainly because of the bad advice of Westerners who were too ideological and infatuated with markets).
China has already made the transition to capitalism, so I don't think a political transition to liberal democracy there would entail the kind of economic disruption Russia experienced.
But you're comparing apples and oranges.
Russia was still a command economy when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and went straight to democracy and capitalism at the same time with very little transition (IIRC, mainly because of the bad advice of Westerners who were too ideological and infatuated with markets).
China has already made the transition to capitalism, so I don't think a political transition to liberal democracy there would entail the kind of economic disruption Russia experienced.
China has never made a transition to capitalism. Roughly half of the workforce is employed by the State, it's at best state capitalism.
A transition to hard capitalism and a collapse of the government would absolutely bring economic disruption. And China right now is much less self sufficient than Russia was in 1991, and gets its foreign exchange from complex and vulnerable supply chains.
China is also much less educated than Russia was at the time, and would be even more vulnerable to corruption.
A transition to hard capitalism and a collapse of the government would absolutely bring economic disruption. And China right now is much less self sufficient than Russia was in 1991, and gets its foreign exchange from complex and vulnerable supply chains.
China is also much less educated than Russia was at the time, and would be even more vulnerable to corruption.
> A transition to hard capitalism and a collapse of the government would absolutely bring economic disruption.
I mean, one of the takeaways from the experience of Russia is to not repeat the same mistakes. If China makes a transition to liberal democracy, it should continue to protect its state sector for a long time, and draw out any reform of it to minimize economic disruption.
It absolutely should not let a bunch of crazed free marketers come in and "creatively" fuck everything up with a blind application of their ideology.
I mean, one of the takeaways from the experience of Russia is to not repeat the same mistakes. If China makes a transition to liberal democracy, it should continue to protect its state sector for a long time, and draw out any reform of it to minimize economic disruption.
It absolutely should not let a bunch of crazed free marketers come in and "creatively" fuck everything up with a blind application of their ideology.
Don't forget that western liberal democracies look pretty un-attractive at the moment. When the choice is between a raving loony geriatric dementia patient and Trump a lot of people think they'd be better off without.
This is still a similar viewpoint held by the young to adult generations of China although the idea of China as a democracy is definitely warming up but its more of at a certain date, China will transition to democracy instead of the current system being replaced now.
> exclusively consume the cultural products of the West
There's more penetration of western media and products in PRC, but vast majority of consumption is still domestic even among educated. And trends show the young are more nationalistic than ever, especially among those with more exposure to the west.
>North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.
Yeah, folks are embarassed at the style of propaganda, ran by old cadres from for a bygone era. Not the idea of propaganda itself. They want better, modernized propaganda that effectively reinforces nationalism, especially abroad.
There's more penetration of western media and products in PRC, but vast majority of consumption is still domestic even among educated. And trends show the young are more nationalistic than ever, especially among those with more exposure to the west.
>North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.
Yeah, folks are embarassed at the style of propaganda, ran by old cadres from for a bygone era. Not the idea of propaganda itself. They want better, modernized propaganda that effectively reinforces nationalism, especially abroad.
On the one hand, they're right to cringe at the tone-deaf socialist era government communist propaganda. "How do you do fellow kids" with a communist flare. Clearly produced by cadres in their 60s in a communist bubble.
On the other hand, the current nationalist Chinese bubble is not that much better. Listening practice on Bilibili would be a lot better without the equally tone deaf comments about how all their neighbors are puppets of the US without any personal agency and owe their culture and history to 5000 years of glorious Chinese civilization. The current anti-Chinese sentiments in the west would be far worse if your average American spent even 30 minutes on Chinese websites. They can complain all day about how biased BBC is towards China (arguably true), but I don't see CGTV overtaking BBC globally in popularity anytime soon. One whiff of that smug self-superiority is enough to make anyone regret learning Chinese.
On the other hand, the current nationalist Chinese bubble is not that much better. Listening practice on Bilibili would be a lot better without the equally tone deaf comments about how all their neighbors are puppets of the US without any personal agency and owe their culture and history to 5000 years of glorious Chinese civilization. The current anti-Chinese sentiments in the west would be far worse if your average American spent even 30 minutes on Chinese websites. They can complain all day about how biased BBC is towards China (arguably true), but I don't see CGTV overtaking BBC globally in popularity anytime soon. One whiff of that smug self-superiority is enough to make anyone regret learning Chinese.
Nationalists everywhere are insufferable. The aspiration for "lovable" PRC propanda is just aspirational. IMO very little chance PRC will be able to out-propagandize west/US especially among west/US aligned partners. Language/cultural divide too big. I think domestically people will just settle for less cringy interntionational rhetoric, which itself is a losing game since western media will interpret translations with liberty regardless. It doesn't matter that PRC citizens are relatively apolitical on the whole, with 1.4B population statistics there's will always be too many absurd nationals to paint narrative. Really PRC strategy of maintaining different internet/cultural bubbles and targetting msgs at more receptive Chinese diasphora audiences is on point. Once attempt at "lovable" propaganda fails, PRC will pursue Russia style disinformation because ultimately that's whats most pragmatic given the divide and realities of competition. Also more of those PRC cartoons that called out western hypocrisy that was well recieved domestically and made western media look ridiculous by coordinated labelling them photographs. Or calling out Canadian indigenous drama, Australia enviromentalism etc, stuff that has had more ramifcations on the domestic politics of Canada and Australia leaders than west pressing on XJ/HK/Tibet, which Xi doesn't lose sleep over.
> Meanwhile, young, educated people almost exclusively consume the cultural products of the West, Korea, and Japan.
What now? China has a pretty extensive film and television industry, and as far as I know it's very popular.
> And they find the North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.
And in that case, the most logical reaction is political disengagement, which is completely A-OK in the CCP's book.
What now? China has a pretty extensive film and television industry, and as far as I know it's very popular.
> And they find the North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.
And in that case, the most logical reaction is political disengagement, which is completely A-OK in the CCP's book.
You might think so, but slacking now seems to be considered to be dangerously rebellious[1] by the CCP.
1: https://qz.com/2019322/why-lying-flat-a-niche-chinese-millen...
1: https://qz.com/2019322/why-lying-flat-a-niche-chinese-millen...
That's different, the "slacking" of which you speak is a kind of dissent.
What I mean by "political disengagement" keeping a distance from political issues and otherwise "saying withing the lines," so to speak.
What I mean by "political disengagement" keeping a distance from political issues and otherwise "saying withing the lines," so to speak.
I see what you mean, it's "going through the motions" without trying too hard, compliance but not enthusiasm.
[deleted]
I'm sure this is one aspect of it. They surely don't want "foreign decadence" to influence their youth --which is part of losing control over narrative.
It's kind of typical socialist thinking that you can have forever revolutionary songs and chants, forever reconstruction and forever community activism (for the party of course). Obviously, that can work in tightly controlled environments such as North Korea, and it looks like they are taking some of that social control back so they can better dictate what they population should do (for its own good as they see it, obviously).
It's kind of typical socialist thinking that you can have forever revolutionary songs and chants, forever reconstruction and forever community activism (for the party of course). Obviously, that can work in tightly controlled environments such as North Korea, and it looks like they are taking some of that social control back so they can better dictate what they population should do (for its own good as they see it, obviously).
I 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.
Worth noting that ANT financial had major risk and accounting shenanigans and regulators were probably in the right to block the IPO until they were sorted out better.
umm. It seems like so many people internationally sympathizes with Jack Ma and Ant, and accuses the Chinese government as oppressing. Lets look at the reality.
Ant has China's most dominate online and mobile payment system, alipay. It has consumer lending products like huabei. Ant ties its payment product with lending product, say if you a colleague student buying a $500 shoes on Taobao, you get to the checkout screen, you are like hey $500 is too much for my monthly budget, can't afford this, Alipay then says oh check this out, through Huabei you can get your shoes now only have to pay back a small portion each months. Ant loan money to consumers, then take a bunch of loans lump them together and divide into securities and sell them to other investors, i.e. classic ABS scheme. Ant even says "since we know the consumer spending and payment habits, we have big data algorithm to calculate the rating of the securities and credit score of the consumer". Consumer credit score is supposed to be a check and balance to prevent lending to high risk individuals, security rating allow investors to be confident about the security they are buying. Now Ant financial is the check and balance to itself in both cases.
Through ABS, Ant externalizes all the risk of lending to outside investors. Financial institutions might include Ant's ABS in other securities. A middle class person might buy retirement investments, which have exposure to Ant's ABS. If you own shares of financial institutions that owns Ant's ABS or securities exposed to Ant's ABS, you are also exposed to Ant's ABS. The exposure is everywhere, can't be isolated. From Ant's perspective, they earn a profit from each dollar they lend, so they got all the positives and none the downsides. This could be a reason why Ant lends to consumer who are much riskier than traditional banks in China lends to, and through my experience, riskier than US credit companies lend to. US credit card companies require a stable job, a home or rent, or a dependent with good credit score. Ant lends to colleague students in China that have non of that. Nor do they check the credit rating of the dependent(parent). If the lending goes bust, for example, triggered by an economic down turn, these ABS will drag down everyone exposed to them. Basically how US financial crisis happened, causing suffering 10s of millions of people. The government's action didn't ban Huabei, and Ant. They are just treating Ant as a financial institution, subjecting it the same rules and standards another financial institution (e.g. a bank). The goal is to reduce financial risks. Why is this a bad thing?
The regulators wanted to use existing financial regulation standards, based on Basel Accords, on Ant. But they were on the fence about it because they didn't want to limit a new form of business emerging, or want to limit what a "private" business want to do. But Jack Ma's statement basically called existing financial regulation, and the Basel Accord itself "stupid, out dated, incompetent". In my opinion, that is unacceptable because while Basel accords has its downsides, it's learnings from many financial disasters that caused suffering to millions of people. Its like airplane safety regulations, are they a hassle? yes. But they are there for a reason. And of course a business person will advocate for reducing the rules that limit their ability to earn money, but reducing the rules will increase the risk the entire society will be harmed, especially the under-privileged. A financial crisis triggered by Ant's reckless lending might leave Jack Ma and Ant's executives slightly less wealth, but they sill got all the other cash in the bank. But for a middle class person, the financial crisis will cost them their jobs, their mortgaged home and their retirement savings. And that middle class person didn't do the things that caused the financial disaster in the first place.
Business people will brand their advocacy as something for good, brand things they are against as something old, outdated, cumbersome, use marketing or media power to sway public opinion. Unless you are well versed in financial theory, how can you tell the truth? Most likely that was the final straw. Regulators finally had to gut to required Ant to be regulated as a financial institution similar to a bank. In my opinion, Ant should be regulated like so from the beginning. They lend money, they issue ABS, of course they are a financial institution, subjected to the same rules, same capital requirements like everyone else. Why should they get preferential treatments, not obey by the same rules. The regulators aren't hard liners, they are too weak. They were probably held back by the public opinion about Chinese government is against private industries, so they are afraid to do things that other might say "limit their freedom, hinder private business development, ccp controls private sector etc", including holding business accountable for legitimate reasons. Now these regulators finally have the gut to do the right thing.
Ant has China's most dominate online and mobile payment system, alipay. It has consumer lending products like huabei. Ant ties its payment product with lending product, say if you a colleague student buying a $500 shoes on Taobao, you get to the checkout screen, you are like hey $500 is too much for my monthly budget, can't afford this, Alipay then says oh check this out, through Huabei you can get your shoes now only have to pay back a small portion each months. Ant loan money to consumers, then take a bunch of loans lump them together and divide into securities and sell them to other investors, i.e. classic ABS scheme. Ant even says "since we know the consumer spending and payment habits, we have big data algorithm to calculate the rating of the securities and credit score of the consumer". Consumer credit score is supposed to be a check and balance to prevent lending to high risk individuals, security rating allow investors to be confident about the security they are buying. Now Ant financial is the check and balance to itself in both cases.
Through ABS, Ant externalizes all the risk of lending to outside investors. Financial institutions might include Ant's ABS in other securities. A middle class person might buy retirement investments, which have exposure to Ant's ABS. If you own shares of financial institutions that owns Ant's ABS or securities exposed to Ant's ABS, you are also exposed to Ant's ABS. The exposure is everywhere, can't be isolated. From Ant's perspective, they earn a profit from each dollar they lend, so they got all the positives and none the downsides. This could be a reason why Ant lends to consumer who are much riskier than traditional banks in China lends to, and through my experience, riskier than US credit companies lend to. US credit card companies require a stable job, a home or rent, or a dependent with good credit score. Ant lends to colleague students in China that have non of that. Nor do they check the credit rating of the dependent(parent). If the lending goes bust, for example, triggered by an economic down turn, these ABS will drag down everyone exposed to them. Basically how US financial crisis happened, causing suffering 10s of millions of people. The government's action didn't ban Huabei, and Ant. They are just treating Ant as a financial institution, subjecting it the same rules and standards another financial institution (e.g. a bank). The goal is to reduce financial risks. Why is this a bad thing?
The regulators wanted to use existing financial regulation standards, based on Basel Accords, on Ant. But they were on the fence about it because they didn't want to limit a new form of business emerging, or want to limit what a "private" business want to do. But Jack Ma's statement basically called existing financial regulation, and the Basel Accord itself "stupid, out dated, incompetent". In my opinion, that is unacceptable because while Basel accords has its downsides, it's learnings from many financial disasters that caused suffering to millions of people. Its like airplane safety regulations, are they a hassle? yes. But they are there for a reason. And of course a business person will advocate for reducing the rules that limit their ability to earn money, but reducing the rules will increase the risk the entire society will be harmed, especially the under-privileged. A financial crisis triggered by Ant's reckless lending might leave Jack Ma and Ant's executives slightly less wealth, but they sill got all the other cash in the bank. But for a middle class person, the financial crisis will cost them their jobs, their mortgaged home and their retirement savings. And that middle class person didn't do the things that caused the financial disaster in the first place.
Business people will brand their advocacy as something for good, brand things they are against as something old, outdated, cumbersome, use marketing or media power to sway public opinion. Unless you are well versed in financial theory, how can you tell the truth? Most likely that was the final straw. Regulators finally had to gut to required Ant to be regulated as a financial institution similar to a bank. In my opinion, Ant should be regulated like so from the beginning. They lend money, they issue ABS, of course they are a financial institution, subjected to the same rules, same capital requirements like everyone else. Why should they get preferential treatments, not obey by the same rules. The regulators aren't hard liners, they are too weak. They were probably held back by the public opinion about Chinese government is against private industries, so they are afraid to do things that other might say "limit their freedom, hinder private business development, ccp controls private sector etc", including holding business accountable for legitimate reasons. Now these regulators finally have the gut to do the right thing.
You 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.
He 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-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.
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.
One 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.
Most regimes and communist systems are paranoid. They'll make sure there wouldn't be another Jack Ma.
> 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.
MSM tried to paint such picture.
Mr. Ma put that show, because of he knows that the regulators are coming to ANT IPO. And he disappeared because a lot of people are going to be very angry after Mr. Ma failed to push the IPO through. Think a bit, who are those angry men. I guarantee you'll never find the names of these people, thinking them like political power that collectively can rival the infamous Mr. Xi.
CCP is bully.
But when it's bullying the one who romanticize 996 [1], hell, yeah, I enjoy that Mr. Ma gets bullied...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system
MSM tried to paint such picture.
Mr. Ma put that show, because of he knows that the regulators are coming to ANT IPO. And he disappeared because a lot of people are going to be very angry after Mr. Ma failed to push the IPO through. Think a bit, who are those angry men. I guarantee you'll never find the names of these people, thinking them like political power that collectively can rival the infamous Mr. Xi.
CCP is bully.
But when it's bullying the one who romanticize 996 [1], hell, yeah, I enjoy that Mr. Ma gets bullied...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system
It is simple rule of authority system, not rule of law system. The only way to win is to give the party members enough shares or bribes so that they like you and see you as the member of the club. Chinese authorities are especially thin skinned and will see moves like this also as the win against any criticism.
lol, you are so wrong here. If the way to win to give party members enough shares or bribes then any of the regulatory actions the past year wont happen.
Ant's case: treating Ant like an financial institution. Setting standards on capital requirements, lending standards etc. Perform financial pressure tests similar to banks. Ant lends money, issues ABS, of course they are a financial institution, should subject to the same rules as anyone else. Upside: reduce financial risks, especially if there is economic downturn. If a financial crisis like the 07 crisis happens, the wealthy might be fine, but the middle class people might lose their jobs, their mortgaged house, their retirement investments into companies that are bankrupt. So preventing a financial crisis is protecting people's livelihoods. The government action shows its not afraid to halt a multi-billion dollar IPO to do this.
Alibaba: establishing Alibaba had "dominate position" in E-commerce industry based on market data between 2015 and 2019 and as such, require seller exclusivity is against anti-monopoly law. Upsides: Make this scenario as a precedent, deter future cases from happening. Reduce the dominate player's ability to bend the rules to hinder competition. Allow more choices for sellers, the majority of which are small businesses. Alibaba's seller exclusivity harmed both competition and the sellers.
Tencent: Establishing Tencent's taking majority of controlling stake in 中国音乐集团, resulted in Tencent being dominate position in online music service. It is illegal under anti-monopoly law for not reporting such transaction for review. And by anti-monopoly law, state council can order the entity to take action to reduce its market consolidation. The action ordered is Tencent cannot sign exclusive music licensing with upper stream suppliers. After Tencent's transaction, it signed exclusive music licensing with Warner, Sony and Universal. This has been devastating to competing music services, Netease cloud music, Xiami music, etc. Upside: Establish precedent. Ensure there is room for competition. Good for competitors.
The advisory on Meituan and food delivery platforms: Attempt to address some key public concerns about food delivery platforms. Food delivery workers extremely overworked by delivery platforms, low pay, lack of safety, insurance protection, and practices such as penalizing delivery workers for late deliveries while over stuff them with orders. Upside: good for delivery workers or other gig workers. Also good for companies because the government is not making drastic changes that destroy the fundamentals of their business. Instead, it is issuing a sensible plan of action that are not too costly for the companies. Also calls for them to investigate different approaches to solve delivery workers pain points.
The advisory on K12 education outside of school: This is a lot more controversial. The background is that most Chinese students spent their time outside of school, during weekends and summer break, in some kind of prep classes, it could be English, math, etc. Chinese parents sent their kids to these prep classes hoping their kids can get ahead of others. When I was growing up, as a primary schooler, my Saturday is Violin class, a English class, my Sunday was a math class and a English class. My summer weekday is all English and Math classes. I heard parents would sent their kindergarten kids to prep class teach grade 2 material. The thing is the prep classes is now a huge industry. Prep class companies market to parents and kids, telling them things like you can get ahead others, you need come to us to learn to get good grades to go to university. Parents spent huge amount of money on "out of school" classes. Another issue is, as these "out of school" classes and companies earn a lot of money, they can pay their teachers much more than public school. So good teachers are leaving public schools, resulting in decreasing quality, more kids have to take "outside" classes, creating a vicious cycle, adding to kids time burden and parents financial burden. The most dangerous thing this creates is segregation of education quality based on economic class. Parents with money can send their kids to place with best education resources, while parents without money send their kids to public school with lower education quality. The new k12 education advisory is about trying to return education to its public, universally benefiting nature, reducing the profit seeking tendency. It is also trying to reduce parents and kids access to "out of school" education and strengthen public school education in order to give kids more non-study time. But time will tell the impact of these policies, what are the positives, are the negatives too harmful, and unintended side effects. "advisory" in China are different than laws. They are kind of best effort, are negotiated and discussed about during actual implementation. And these advisories are updated frequently when they need changing. This is a big reform of education scene, if it is successful it will create a more healthy atmosphere for Chinese kids to grow up in and less burden on families.
Ant's case: treating Ant like an financial institution. Setting standards on capital requirements, lending standards etc. Perform financial pressure tests similar to banks. Ant lends money, issues ABS, of course they are a financial institution, should subject to the same rules as anyone else. Upside: reduce financial risks, especially if there is economic downturn. If a financial crisis like the 07 crisis happens, the wealthy might be fine, but the middle class people might lose their jobs, their mortgaged house, their retirement investments into companies that are bankrupt. So preventing a financial crisis is protecting people's livelihoods. The government action shows its not afraid to halt a multi-billion dollar IPO to do this.
Alibaba: establishing Alibaba had "dominate position" in E-commerce industry based on market data between 2015 and 2019 and as such, require seller exclusivity is against anti-monopoly law. Upsides: Make this scenario as a precedent, deter future cases from happening. Reduce the dominate player's ability to bend the rules to hinder competition. Allow more choices for sellers, the majority of which are small businesses. Alibaba's seller exclusivity harmed both competition and the sellers.
Tencent: Establishing Tencent's taking majority of controlling stake in 中国音乐集团, resulted in Tencent being dominate position in online music service. It is illegal under anti-monopoly law for not reporting such transaction for review. And by anti-monopoly law, state council can order the entity to take action to reduce its market consolidation. The action ordered is Tencent cannot sign exclusive music licensing with upper stream suppliers. After Tencent's transaction, it signed exclusive music licensing with Warner, Sony and Universal. This has been devastating to competing music services, Netease cloud music, Xiami music, etc. Upside: Establish precedent. Ensure there is room for competition. Good for competitors.
The advisory on Meituan and food delivery platforms: Attempt to address some key public concerns about food delivery platforms. Food delivery workers extremely overworked by delivery platforms, low pay, lack of safety, insurance protection, and practices such as penalizing delivery workers for late deliveries while over stuff them with orders. Upside: good for delivery workers or other gig workers. Also good for companies because the government is not making drastic changes that destroy the fundamentals of their business. Instead, it is issuing a sensible plan of action that are not too costly for the companies. Also calls for them to investigate different approaches to solve delivery workers pain points.
The advisory on K12 education outside of school: This is a lot more controversial. The background is that most Chinese students spent their time outside of school, during weekends and summer break, in some kind of prep classes, it could be English, math, etc. Chinese parents sent their kids to these prep classes hoping their kids can get ahead of others. When I was growing up, as a primary schooler, my Saturday is Violin class, a English class, my Sunday was a math class and a English class. My summer weekday is all English and Math classes. I heard parents would sent their kindergarten kids to prep class teach grade 2 material. The thing is the prep classes is now a huge industry. Prep class companies market to parents and kids, telling them things like you can get ahead others, you need come to us to learn to get good grades to go to university. Parents spent huge amount of money on "out of school" classes. Another issue is, as these "out of school" classes and companies earn a lot of money, they can pay their teachers much more than public school. So good teachers are leaving public schools, resulting in decreasing quality, more kids have to take "outside" classes, creating a vicious cycle, adding to kids time burden and parents financial burden. The most dangerous thing this creates is segregation of education quality based on economic class. Parents with money can send their kids to place with best education resources, while parents without money send their kids to public school with lower education quality. The new k12 education advisory is about trying to return education to its public, universally benefiting nature, reducing the profit seeking tendency. It is also trying to reduce parents and kids access to "out of school" education and strengthen public school education in order to give kids more non-study time. But time will tell the impact of these policies, what are the positives, are the negatives too harmful, and unintended side effects. "advisory" in China are different than laws. They are kind of best effort, are negotiated and discussed about during actual implementation. And these advisories are updated frequently when they need changing. This is a big reform of education scene, if it is successful it will create a more healthy atmosphere for Chinese kids to grow up in and less burden on families.
This doesn't make sense to me.
Centralized power is good (if that's what you want, and it seems like that's the MO of the CCP).
They just need to control it.
They should want Tencent to take over the world - with them in complete control of Tencent (which they basically already are).
Why should the CCP afraid of Tencent getting big instead of trying everything they can to make Tencent and ByteDance etc bigger?
Centralized power is good (if that's what you want, and it seems like that's the MO of the CCP).
They just need to control it.
They should want Tencent to take over the world - with them in complete control of Tencent (which they basically already are).
Why should the CCP afraid of Tencent getting big instead of trying everything they can to make Tencent and ByteDance etc bigger?
Two flaws would be to assume
A) the ccp is a monolithic entity
And
B) they have complete control over tencent et al. Some control isn’t complete control.
Factions exist in the ccp and having outside concentrations of power can lead to dangerous fragmentation that can also affect the internal politics of the ccp
Factions exist in the ccp and having outside concentrations of power can lead to dangerous fragmentation that can also affect the internal politics of the ccp
Right now, Tencent makes a lot of money selling data on Chinese citizens to the highest bidder for the purpose of ad targeting. The government isn't going to do "everything they can" to make Tencent bigger if "everything" includes allowing anyone with deep enough pockets to put their population under surveillance. Hence the network security review.
The bigger threat is apps with massive vertical integration that are popular in Asia. The West hasn't gone down that rabbit hole yet.
Social stability IS econimic power in the long term. Any anti-trust enforcement of that sort is beneficial for the overall market, even if the largest business in that sector will suffer. Short term economical metrics really don't and shouldn't matter that much to a well functioning economy.
By reining in large corporations which may optimize for their own profits over social good and even economic competition may result in stronger long term economic might.
I 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.
Whether China's approach is wise or not...I don't know.
What 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?.
Yes various interests lobby the government all the time. But what are the best/clearest examples of the market tail wagging the policy dog?.
There'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.
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.
Insert here any president boasting about the Dow Jones hitting a new high while they're in office
Good. Regulators shouldn't care about stock prices at all. They should always do the right thing and let the market crash if necessary.
That'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.
Regulators 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.
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.
I 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.
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.
I'm saying regulation is likely to be ineffective if it doesn't hurt stock prices.
> 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.
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.
We (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.
There 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.
China's semiconductor company spiked today on the stock market.
Fascinating that they care more about national security (in their own way) than feeding the already fat shareholders as the US would do.
yeah, 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
1. the og investors cashed out. leaving retail holding the bag.
2. they buy the stock at a discount
I 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.
They could of added the regulation at a slower pace instead of pulling the plug on everyone.
> with complete disregard on how the stock market might react
Even better, they're intentionally redirecting finances away from companies they don't like.
Even better, they're intentionally redirecting finances away from companies they don't like.
[deleted]
>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).
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).
Last 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.
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.
the stock market in china is not a free market.
> 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.
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.
WeChat 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.
Or 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.
And forget getting the weChat payment functionality working with a foreign bank.
It 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.
When I tried to troubleshoot getting a bank linked to the account, WeChat suspended the account for "suspicious behavior". That was that.
The best thing about San Francisco for me was being able to run around and find Mainland Chinese to register me!
Even Hong Kongers couldn’t register Americans at the time.
Even Hong Kongers couldn’t register Americans at the time.
[deleted]
The 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-busine...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/china-is-...
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-busine...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/china-is-...
If 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.
Under 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.
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.
You 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)
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)
How 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.
50 thousand people are born in China every day.
It's not like the world is static.
It's not like the world is static.
Well, luckily babies are are too young to use WeChat and won’t be old enough by early August for this to impact them.
What about the 50k people/day being both 13 years ago? Will they register earlier than they would have done, seeing August as a deadline?
The 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.
Looks 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?
Hello 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.
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.
The 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.
The 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.
based 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
Seems that only applies to China weixin accounts. The rest of the world can still create an international wechat account.
Another new string play started with these. It will impact the market huge time.
Ah, not the same as venerable WeeChat. #IRC
xwolfi(1)
Fascinating how the Chinese authorities seem to be regulating the these companies with complete disregard on how the stock market might react.