Jack Ma makes first live appearance in three months in online meet(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Jack Ma makes first live appearance in three months in online meet
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-alibaba-jack-ma/alibabas-jack-ma-makes-first-public-appearance-since-oct-in-online-meeting-state-media-idUSKBN29P0CA
362 comments
If Ma wanted to reappear and reassure people, not sure this would be his first choice, method, etc.
It seems weirder to just pop up like this like nothing has been going on.
It seems weirder to just pop up like this like nothing has been going on.
This how politics work in China. When the government is unhappy with someone, they go away for a while and often reappear at a completely unrelated event they had schedule long before and don't acknowledge their disappearance. Everything happens behind the scenes and never officially.
If they ever acknowledge it, it will be as a public apology for their past conduct. This is what Ma's protege Justin Sun did after he got into hot water with the Chinese government for promoting his crypto currency project too loudly:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tron-crypto-founder-justin-su...
If they ever acknowledge it, it will be as a public apology for their past conduct. This is what Ma's protege Justin Sun did after he got into hot water with the Chinese government for promoting his crypto currency project too loudly:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tron-crypto-founder-justin-su...
It's part of Jack Ma Foundation's annual Rural Educators Award. A few more pictures: https://tech.ifeng.com/c/83BS98wwWV9
Here's one from 2020. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/07/c_138685262.htm
Old UN article. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/08/jack-...
Here's one from 2020. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/07/c_138685262.htm
Old UN article. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/08/jack-...
The article mentions that.
Then it shouldn't be that weird, Ma overstepped with his speech and is carefully negotiating the minefield he's currently in. Alibaba stock rebounded ~5% since his showing. He'll slowly work his way back into public life as is customary for nature of his infraction. If CCP wanted to disappear him long term, there'd be predictable and fraud/corruption charges already laid.
The situation is weird regardless of the existence of a charity.
It's typical Chinese politics to the point of status quo. Kill the chicken to scare the monkeys. This development is what anyone with understanding of the Chinese system has repeated in past posts on the subject matter, but people dismiss in preference for rampant conspiracy theories. General commentary: if HN audience insists on flamewarring over Chinese topics, there should be some effort to learn about how Chinese system operates instead of insipid shallow commentaries or predilection for shill accusations despite many Chinese HNers engaging in good faith.
To elaborate more broadly on the subject: these incidents are relatively formulaic to the point where it's reasonably straight forward to guess outcomes based on political status of individual and nature of infraction. Prominent individuals severely contradicting official line = CCP send you on temporary contrition vacation, repeat infractions = corruption charges -> jail. If individual is public official or nature of infraction affects political structure i.e. actual massive corruption or negligence that undermines public safety -> up to death, though more life sentences or death with reprieves in recent times. Less significant individuals (like activists) get invited to drink tea at police stations, sign and various warnings before escalating to boilerplate disturbing social order sentences and successively longer sentences. Ma's more business class than political, he overstepped at a time and on a topic he was precisely not suppose to over step, so he got sent to vacation. I'm sure he got talks by relevant cadres, maybe self-criticism letter is in the works, but he was always going to be let out of the dog house. Like many systems in China, rule by law is not capricious, but customary.
To elaborate more broadly on the subject: these incidents are relatively formulaic to the point where it's reasonably straight forward to guess outcomes based on political status of individual and nature of infraction. Prominent individuals severely contradicting official line = CCP send you on temporary contrition vacation, repeat infractions = corruption charges -> jail. If individual is public official or nature of infraction affects political structure i.e. actual massive corruption or negligence that undermines public safety -> up to death, though more life sentences or death with reprieves in recent times. Less significant individuals (like activists) get invited to drink tea at police stations, sign and various warnings before escalating to boilerplate disturbing social order sentences and successively longer sentences. Ma's more business class than political, he overstepped at a time and on a topic he was precisely not suppose to over step, so he got sent to vacation. I'm sure he got talks by relevant cadres, maybe self-criticism letter is in the works, but he was always going to be let out of the dog house. Like many systems in China, rule by law is not capricious, but customary.
Are there any first hand accounts or primary sources on what happens during these "contrition vacations"? Info along those lines would help illuminate why and how the current process is the status quo. I have not seen any first hand accounts or primary sources but I normally only read about these incidents when they get wider coverage like this one.
[deleted]
> like nothing has been going on
Because nothing happened. So many westerners are so brainwashed on any China related topics that conspiracy theories are accepted as fact without any sort of filtering. If you think CCP is going to make the richest man(a popular public figure no less) in China disappear overnight, you ate way too much propaganda.
Because nothing happened. So many westerners are so brainwashed on any China related topics that conspiracy theories are accepted as fact without any sort of filtering. If you think CCP is going to make the richest man(a popular public figure no less) in China disappear overnight, you ate way too much propaganda.
Does anyone have any book recommendations for non-chinese people to understand CCP power structures? I'm completely lost in all of this Jack Ma stuff.
The Chinese government is highly structured and in general features most of the things one might expect in a modern nation-state (an executive, a legislature, a court system, etc.)
The exception, and what makes it hard to understand for outsiders, is that one of the political parties (Chinese Communist Party) is also an extra, supervisory, branch of government and sits on-top of and permeates all the regular bureaucratic structures. There are other political parties but since they cannot surmount the CCP in this structure they remain relegated to very minor roles. The military (PLA) is also a branch of government, but is also an element of the CCP. One way of thinking of it is that the government of China is not allowed to have a military, and the ruling political party's own security forces have assumed that role -- with subbranches of that force filling in for traditional military branches such as a Navy and an Air Force - which are all separate "forces" under the Army.
Within the CCP there are factions, or different wings, and the kinds of fairly expected politics in any such organization play out as people jostle for position within the party. These factions can have a number of quite profound disagreements, and may sound more like different parties in some ways, but are united by common core beliefs and history.
This structure creates as many problems as it solves, with no external checks to the current CCP policies - but there are internal processes and checks that are supposed to help maintain legitimacy of the party in this structure. On the flip side, establishing such a system also makes it easier to consolidate power over the major power structures. The current head of China, Xi Jinping, is the head of the party, the head of the executive branch and the head of the military, giving him no real outside checks on authority as he has both the supervisory power and the military power to overwhelm opposition - the presidency is more or a ceremonial role within the government at this point.
However, there are analogues, the U.S. President, for example, is also the head of their respective party, the head of the executive branch, and the head of the military. The difference is that there are built in exit ramps and external checks on power (other parties, other branches of government) that are designed to frustrate the accumulation of power and political parties hold no official and a subservient role to the government apparatus. The military in addition, is not a branch of government whereas it is in the Chinese system.
The exception, and what makes it hard to understand for outsiders, is that one of the political parties (Chinese Communist Party) is also an extra, supervisory, branch of government and sits on-top of and permeates all the regular bureaucratic structures. There are other political parties but since they cannot surmount the CCP in this structure they remain relegated to very minor roles. The military (PLA) is also a branch of government, but is also an element of the CCP. One way of thinking of it is that the government of China is not allowed to have a military, and the ruling political party's own security forces have assumed that role -- with subbranches of that force filling in for traditional military branches such as a Navy and an Air Force - which are all separate "forces" under the Army.
Within the CCP there are factions, or different wings, and the kinds of fairly expected politics in any such organization play out as people jostle for position within the party. These factions can have a number of quite profound disagreements, and may sound more like different parties in some ways, but are united by common core beliefs and history.
This structure creates as many problems as it solves, with no external checks to the current CCP policies - but there are internal processes and checks that are supposed to help maintain legitimacy of the party in this structure. On the flip side, establishing such a system also makes it easier to consolidate power over the major power structures. The current head of China, Xi Jinping, is the head of the party, the head of the executive branch and the head of the military, giving him no real outside checks on authority as he has both the supervisory power and the military power to overwhelm opposition - the presidency is more or a ceremonial role within the government at this point.
However, there are analogues, the U.S. President, for example, is also the head of their respective party, the head of the executive branch, and the head of the military. The difference is that there are built in exit ramps and external checks on power (other parties, other branches of government) that are designed to frustrate the accumulation of power and political parties hold no official and a subservient role to the government apparatus. The military in addition, is not a branch of government whereas it is in the Chinese system.
Since you did not mention it specifically, I'll mention that term limits are suspected to be an important part of keeping a reasonable concentration of power and not having a democracy devolve into a dictatorship.
On the one hand, term limits are deliberately eroded by long-running despots (primarily in some African countries so far, and increasingly elsewhere in the world lately.) On the other hand, Germany's chansellorship does not, IIRC, have term limits and that seems to work fine for them. So maybe being able to remove term limits is a symptom more than a cause?
Either way, questions like these are discussed in the book How Democracies Die, which has been recommended to me and is on my re-read list, but which I haven't gotten to yet.
On the one hand, term limits are deliberately eroded by long-running despots (primarily in some African countries so far, and increasingly elsewhere in the world lately.) On the other hand, Germany's chansellorship does not, IIRC, have term limits and that seems to work fine for them. So maybe being able to remove term limits is a symptom more than a cause?
Either way, questions like these are discussed in the book How Democracies Die, which has been recommended to me and is on my re-read list, but which I haven't gotten to yet.
> On the other hand, Germany's chansellorship does not [...] habe term limits
In fact, there is a limit: A German citizen might hold the office of Chancellor ("Kanzler", or "Kanzlerin" for female form) four times, or sixteen years in total.
In fact, there is a limit: A German citizen might hold the office of Chancellor ("Kanzler", or "Kanzlerin" for female form) four times, or sixteen years in total.
And 4 times 4 is quite long actually. That is 16 long years and the current chancellor, Angela Merkel, is actually the 'brain child' of previous 16 year chancellor Helmut Kohl, with just a brief intermittence of Gerhard Schroder in between. For non-observers of the German political parties, Kohl and Merkel are from the 'regular' conservative party (CDU), while Schroder was from the SPD, the regular left or 'working people's party'. Of course after being chancellor he became an advisor for Russian Gazprom... A lot of Germany heats with (Russian) natural gas.
https://www.trtworld.com/europe/merkel-helmut-kohl-s-little-...
Kohl: 1 October 1982 - 27 October 1998
Schroder: 27 October 1998 - 22 November 2005
Merkel: 22 November 2005 - whenever Corona ends I suppose. Thuringia already postponed their state elections from April to September because of Corona.
https://www.trtworld.com/europe/merkel-helmut-kohl-s-little-...
Kohl: 1 October 1982 - 27 October 1998
Schroder: 27 October 1998 - 22 November 2005
Merkel: 22 November 2005 - whenever Corona ends I suppose. Thuringia already postponed their state elections from April to September because of Corona.
I suspect that term limits are less important with a parliamentary system since the head is typically somewhat less powerful than a president.
Contributing factors also include, I suspect, more independence for individual subdivisions, e.g. states in the US or Bundesländer in Germany unless I'm mistaken.
>One way of thinking of it is that the government of China is not allowed to have a military, and the ruling political party's own security forces have assumed that role -- with subbranches of that force filling in for traditional military branches such as a Navy and an Air Force - which are all separate "forces" under the Army.
This is very similar in concept to the SA/SS (Nazi Germany) or the Red Army (USSR). All were paramilitary wings of political parties before their rise to power.
This is very similar in concept to the SA/SS (Nazi Germany) or the Red Army (USSR). All were paramilitary wings of political parties before their rise to power.
Most of what you described is generally true for autrocracies. The real interesting part of China is that usually autrocracies perform poorly as the leaders put power in front of technological advancement.
Chinese leaders though try really hard to allow tech advancements to happen, and perform quite well on the market.
Chinese leaders though try really hard to allow tech advancements to happen, and perform quite well on the market.
> with subbranches of that force filling in for traditional military branches such as a Navy and an Air Force - which are all separate "forces" under the Army.
The Chinese Navy is called "People's Liberation Army Navy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy
The Chinese Navy is called "People's Liberation Army Navy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy
> One way of thinking of it is that the government of China is
> not allowed to have a military, and the ruling political
> party's own security forces have assumed that role
How did this evolve? I can't think of too many places where a party, rather than an individual, is elevated over the state.
I think this is more the rule than the exception. The idea that states exist to serve the individual would be laughed at for most of human history. Be it God or the state, man exists to serve. Conscripting and killing young men for the sake of the state/God/glory has been one of humanities favorite pastimes.
Where did you get this knowledge? I suspect from books and if so I'd like to know which ones, please.
I've always been kind of interested in why autocratic regimes or dictators engage in seemingly unnecessary benevolent or constructive activities. At some point I decided to better understand how the Chinese government functions since for a long time it's been both autocratic and surprisingly benevolent in certain areas. So basically some combination of youtube, wikipedia and a few other places till I more or less came to a high-level understanding.
There are also some English language Chinese government produced youtube videos that also do a pretty good job at giving basic civics lessons on how their government works if you can look past all the self-congratulations. It's definitely "complicated" and is not just Xi Jinping barking his every desire and whim as it tends to get reduced to.
For example: https://youtu.be/Qu4QTxl9GVw
There are plenty of others like: https://youtu.be/fgor9fmA6po
There are also some English language Chinese government produced youtube videos that also do a pretty good job at giving basic civics lessons on how their government works if you can look past all the self-congratulations. It's definitely "complicated" and is not just Xi Jinping barking his every desire and whim as it tends to get reduced to.
For example: https://youtu.be/Qu4QTxl9GVw
There are plenty of others like: https://youtu.be/fgor9fmA6po
Surprised no one has mentioned “Red Capitalism (2012)” which specifically covers the finance industry in China (pre-AliPay but post reform in the modern era) which gives a clear insight into the sort of banking system Ma tried to shake up and their big role in China’s rise.
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Capitalism-Financial-Foundation-E...
The author is an excellent China Watcher who works at an Australian think tank and basically covers this topic for a living.
His blog post on the matter is a good starting point, which was before the IPO was cancelled, and many before that were prescient.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/many-trails-an...
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Capitalism-Financial-Foundation-E...
The author is an excellent China Watcher who works at an Australian think tank and basically covers this topic for a living.
His blog post on the matter is a good starting point, which was before the IPO was cancelled, and many before that were prescient.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/many-trails-an...
Not a book but a talk given at an internal government seminar by a China policy advisor to the Australian government and recommended by Bill Bishop, one of the bigger names in China related news. Talk given in 2017.
https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in
https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in
I should have wrote transcript of a talk.
„China in ten words“ by Yu Hua, of course banned in China
„The awakening of China“ - by Sun Yat Sen. Old but informative least but not last becauseit was the only book heralded by both Chinas (PRC and Taiwan) and even allowed during Mao‘s heydays of Terror (in which the official amount of allowed books was in the single digits, and most of those were authored by Mao).
„The awakening of China“ - by Sun Yat Sen. Old but informative least but not last becauseit was the only book heralded by both Chinas (PRC and Taiwan) and even allowed during Mao‘s heydays of Terror (in which the official amount of allowed books was in the single digits, and most of those were authored by Mao).
The problem of China - Bertrand Russell. Published in 1922. It's not recent but is an incredible insight for the era and forward thinking piece. It is incredibly relevant today.
A book from 1922? That's back during the Republican era, pre-civil war. I think any resource from before 30 years ago is totally irrelevant in today's setting, except maybe to explain how Chinese modern history developed.
It's shocking how accurate his predictions were, and I think it's really important to understand that these weren't lucky guesses. They were the product of a deep and insightful analysis of Chinese culture and society that is still very much relevant today. The personalities have changed, but in many ways China is still China.
Do you have an example of something that you think was a very good prediction that has panned out?
He warned that their society is prone to endemic corruption, that merging the worst aspects of Chinese culture with Capitalism would be a very dangerous combination. He said that China could become an economic and military rival only exceeded by the united States over the next few centuries, so he was explicitly thinking long term. This was at a time when most Westerners thought of China as an archaic, irrelevant joke.
Oh man, maybe you're right.
I scrolled to a random section and I read:
"In fact, [the west] have quite as much to learn from [China] as they from us, but there is far less chance of our learning it."
"[There's] a great eagerness to acquire Western learning, not simply in order to acquire national strength and be able to resist Western aggression, but because a very large number of people consider learning a good thing in itself"
Nothing has changed in 100 years...
I scrolled to a random section and I read:
"In fact, [the west] have quite as much to learn from [China] as they from us, but there is far less chance of our learning it."
"[There's] a great eagerness to acquire Western learning, not simply in order to acquire national strength and be able to resist Western aggression, but because a very large number of people consider learning a good thing in itself"
Nothing has changed in 100 years...
But is there something specific to Chinese culture that he argued made them more corrupt? Because it seems to me like basically all poor countries are corrupt, that they tend to get less corrupt as they get richer (or rather, they get richer as they get less corrupt) and China in 1922 was very poor indeed.
Honestly it's very hard to tell. It's quite short. My wife is Chinese and I've spent a bit of time over there. It's hard for me to tell which aspects of cultural behaviour over there are a product of several generations of communist rule and which date back earlier. What I can say is the business environment over there is bare naked ruthless. It's always possible to make a deal, right up to the moment it isn't and then you're done. As for social order, the Chinese believe in the rule of authority, not law.
[deleted]
How do you know it is relevant?
TBH like most westerners, most Chinese don't even understand how CCP works. I surely won't trust a book written in 1922.
TBH like most westerners, most Chinese don't even understand how CCP works. I surely won't trust a book written in 1922.
> most Chinese don't even understand how CCP works
That's on purpose, the first test of getting power to work for you is an intelligence and ambition check: can you focus enough ability for long enough to sniff out where the networks of power are ?
That's on purpose, the first test of getting power to work for you is an intelligence and ambition check: can you focus enough ability for long enough to sniff out where the networks of power are ?
> I surely won't trust a book written in 1922.
It works because a large part of it is based not just on Chinese culture, but on human nature.
Its the reason that the Ten Commandments are still relevant today, because as Paul Mooney said, "It puts its foot in man's ass", or in other words, because many of the stories in the Bible were written by people with an understanding of human nature.
The same reason so much of the Constitution of the United States of America still works. Its written to humanity's nature, not current events of 1776.
It works because a large part of it is based not just on Chinese culture, but on human nature.
Its the reason that the Ten Commandments are still relevant today, because as Paul Mooney said, "It puts its foot in man's ass", or in other words, because many of the stories in the Bible were written by people with an understanding of human nature.
The same reason so much of the Constitution of the United States of America still works. Its written to humanity's nature, not current events of 1776.
The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers (2012)
I wonder if the 2021 version would have much different; were there known "re-education" camps then, etc?
Yes. For example, here's a commentary, published in 2012 by Xinhua, arguing that the time was ripe to reform the "reeducation through labor" system http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2012-10-12/152725346359.shtml (in Chinese, of course)
The reform did happen, replacing e.g. labor camps for drug addicts by forced detox camps, but those were mostly the same, still using hard labor as their main method to "rehabilitate" addicts. So not much changed in practice. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2019/10/25/punish-and-cure%ef... (this one is in English)
You may wonder why you haven't heard about this before. The answer is, I think, that most groups subjected to "reeducation through labor" are not organized and scarcely have any international contacts, so they have a hard time getting mainstream international media to report on them.
The reform did happen, replacing e.g. labor camps for drug addicts by forced detox camps, but those were mostly the same, still using hard labor as their main method to "rehabilitate" addicts. So not much changed in practice. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2019/10/25/punish-and-cure%ef... (this one is in English)
You may wonder why you haven't heard about this before. The answer is, I think, that most groups subjected to "reeducation through labor" are not organized and scarcely have any international contacts, so they have a hard time getting mainstream international media to report on them.
It is definitely different.
Back in 2012 the party is controled by a group of elder guys, though there is someone at the top.
Now it is dictated by Xi, who has already changed many things, like Chairman should only serve two terms. Luckily, he has no son.
Back in 2012 the party is controled by a group of elder guys, though there is someone at the top.
Now it is dictated by Xi, who has already changed many things, like Chairman should only serve two terms. Luckily, he has no son.
I heard that The Governance of China is a good book.
https://www.amazon.com/Xi-Jinping-Governance-English-Languag...
Another book that may help is "Has China Won?" by Kishore Mahbubani.
Another book that may help is "Has China Won?" by Kishore Mahbubani.
Not strictly related to CCP, but a long text about how China has evolved in the past couple of decades from a cultural perspective.
https://lithub.com/modern-china-is-so-crazy-it-needs-a-new-l...
https://lithub.com/modern-china-is-so-crazy-it-needs-a-new-l...
Also how the 10 year term was removed. Seems like this is a core principle in the CCP party, but what events caused this to change. Was this planned from a long time or it the circumstances were right and it was grabbed.
Age of Ambition for how people outside navigate it. How China Escaped the Poverty Trap has some very good stuff on incentive structures inside the CCP.
Deceiving the Sky: Inside Communist China's Drive for Global Supremacy (2019) by Bill Gertz is an excellent starting point: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50927537-deceiving-the-s...
I wonder why you’re being downvoted. Is it because it’s so accurate that it hurts or because it’s not?
Bill Gertz (the Author) is a very divisive figure in US politics, with a long history of anti China bias. His writings are much more polemic screeds and less balanced academic analysis. He sees the US-China situation very much as battle between good and evil (with the Democrats being complicit on the side of evil), has zero nuance and very little sourcing in his books. All of this makes his books rather controversial.
All that being said. None of this is evidence for his books actually being wrong.
All that being said. None of this is evidence for his books actually being wrong.
Please don't break the site guidelines like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Dang, I honestly think it's a fair question. And it crossed my mind, too, when I read the post it refers to.
Actually I think I misread the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25849052.
Ah sorry dang! Will take heed in future.
Actually I think I read the second sentence as a snarky political jab, when on a closer look it seems to have been a neutral question, or at least that's a plausible interpretation.
"So accurate that it hurts" is the sort of thing that political trolls say, and it probably triggered the pattern matching machine in my head—which sometimes misses things, especially at speed. Sorry!
"So accurate that it hurts" is the sort of thing that political trolls say, and it probably triggered the pattern matching machine in my head—which sometimes misses things, especially at speed. Sorry!
Yes it was meant as an inquiry, but I could have phrased it differently, looking back and after your moderation comments.
Honestly though, don't you think that's a valid question - asking for qualitative responses? Notice how the user responded to you, as an authority, I hope you're aware of that power dynamic as well.
I've also thought I'd love to see a Netflix style documentary of "a day in dang's life" to help us get to know you, to humanize you more + would be good marketing for HN and YCombinator. You're often very poetic in your responses, I think a documentary focused on you could be quite good.
I've also thought I'd love to see a Netflix style documentary of "a day in dang's life" to help us get to know you, to humanize you more + would be good marketing for HN and YCombinator. You're often very poetic in your responses, I think a documentary focused on you could be quite good.
Perhaps you may enjoy https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th....
Well written article, I learned a lot. I wasn't a huge fan of how little they espoused the actual positive side of the site, what continues to bring me and many of you back. The flaming and dramatic views of some are noise to me, the great insight and lively polite debate is what I see.
Thanks! Actually I had read part of it but never got back to it. Now on my to-do.
Dang, should there be a single meta-thread - monthly or quarterly -- where you hold a grand durbar and folks can vent their grievances, and you get some feedback from different segments?
People aren't shy about posting their grievances. Having a dedicated thread for that would just breed more of them.
thanks for replying!
If we were to have a seperate thread, then folks should absolutely not post these things in regular threads, thus leaving them cleaner and with a better tone.
they are free to reference this incident on the grievance thread. There, different downvote rules should apply of course.
There might be others who feel the same way, and therefore might upvote it. So, this way, you can get a sense of how many/deeply feel about a particular issue, and then address it suitably.
Once this particular case is addressed, then we create a link of sorts, and the next month someone brings this up, we just point to it.
I am thinking - maybe once a quarter -- to start with, and vary frequency as needed.
If we were to have a seperate thread, then folks should absolutely not post these things in regular threads, thus leaving them cleaner and with a better tone.
they are free to reference this incident on the grievance thread. There, different downvote rules should apply of course.
There might be others who feel the same way, and therefore might upvote it. So, this way, you can get a sense of how many/deeply feel about a particular issue, and then address it suitably.
Once this particular case is addressed, then we create a link of sorts, and the next month someone brings this up, we just point to it.
I am thinking - maybe once a quarter -- to start with, and vary frequency as needed.
I understand the appeal, but users wouldn't abide by such a restriction on normal threads. The more one tried to force it, the more energy one would provoke to get around it or overcome it.
It would be a lost cause because it goes against human nature. People feel what they feel when they feel it; you can't stop them from expressing it, and trying to stop them would only multiply it.
It would be a lost cause because it goes against human nature. People feel what they feel when they feel it; you can't stop them from expressing it, and trying to stop them would only multiply it.
ok, got it.
[deleted]
How appropriate, people being told to shut up on a post about people being made to shut up.
Dammit dang, downvote abuse is a real issue.
The very fact that people keep bringing this up should clue you in. Once or twice, okay maybe it's the complainer's perception that's wrong, but again and again, for over a year? Then your damn system has a problem.
The least you could do to address it is not let downvotes instantly affect a comment's visibility. Fucking delay it for a few hours to allow everyone at least a chance to be seen.
Why is that so painfully hard for you to do? Did you lose the source code or can't find another Malbolge maintainer to take over?
Dammit dang, downvote abuse is a real issue.
The very fact that people keep bringing this up should clue you in. Once or twice, okay maybe it's the complainer's perception that's wrong, but again and again, for over a year? Then your damn system has a problem.
The least you could do to address it is not let downvotes instantly affect a comment's visibility. Fucking delay it for a few hours to allow everyone at least a chance to be seen.
Why is that so painfully hard for you to do? Did you lose the source code or can't find another Malbolge maintainer to take over?
>Dammit dang, downvote abuse is a real issue.
Maybe maybe not, but clearly not in this case. It was troll-ish and looking for a fight. Just like your own:
>How appropriate, people being told to shut up on a post about people being made to shut up.
Would you talk to your mother that way? It isn't respectful and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
>Why is that so painfully hard for you to do? Did you lose the source code or can't find another Malbolge maintainer to take over?
I rest my case.
Maybe maybe not, but clearly not in this case. It was troll-ish and looking for a fight. Just like your own:
>How appropriate, people being told to shut up on a post about people being made to shut up.
Would you talk to your mother that way? It isn't respectful and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
>Why is that so painfully hard for you to do? Did you lose the source code or can't find another Malbolge maintainer to take over?
I rest my case.
This is not a one year problem. And it will stay that way because, as you know, HN is a corporation. Not a public forum.
Maintaining these rules allow dang@co to maintain the position of control over what happen in HN. The corollary is that changing them will dilute their control. They found a local maximum of discourse level and they keep it that way.
The justification that the discourse on HN is maintained at a high level by not talking about the rules is at least condescending to the participants.
It doesn't matter to them if they lose you on these grounds since talking about the rules appears only on extremes which are shallow in a normal distribution. They will lose the few participants that care enough about that while maintaining those in the middle. (Of course, cutting of the extremes will grow newer ones in the empty space but I digress...).
What happens with time is that people adjust their discourse to the middle ground making it void of any new or interesting information. Thus, HN becomes an echo chamber of mainstream ideas and people will leave when they got bored enough of the same thing. We're already there and @dang is more vocal now because he knows it.
Maintaining these rules allow dang@co to maintain the position of control over what happen in HN. The corollary is that changing them will dilute their control. They found a local maximum of discourse level and they keep it that way.
The justification that the discourse on HN is maintained at a high level by not talking about the rules is at least condescending to the participants.
It doesn't matter to them if they lose you on these grounds since talking about the rules appears only on extremes which are shallow in a normal distribution. They will lose the few participants that care enough about that while maintaining those in the middle. (Of course, cutting of the extremes will grow newer ones in the empty space but I digress...).
What happens with time is that people adjust their discourse to the middle ground making it void of any new or interesting information. Thus, HN becomes an echo chamber of mainstream ideas and people will leave when they got bored enough of the same thing. We're already there and @dang is more vocal now because he knows it.
I only partly agree with your view. It might be so, but there is a genuine reason behind not discussing the rules: they're always off-topic. For people like me who come to HN to read an interesting discussion about tech issues, anything mentioning downvoting is almost automatically useless in the sense that it doesn't bring any new information, it's not interesting, it doesn't affect me in any way.
Yes, if I were in charge of HN I would solve certain issues differently, and so would you, but it's a private forum run by someone else, so we have to obey in order to participate, whether we like it or not. The very fact that we're even having this discussion now means we prefer this place to any other in this moment. So you can't say these rules don't work.
Yes, if I were in charge of HN I would solve certain issues differently, and so would you, but it's a private forum run by someone else, so we have to obey in order to participate, whether we like it or not. The very fact that we're even having this discussion now means we prefer this place to any other in this moment. So you can't say these rules don't work.
> The very fact that we're even having this discussion now means we prefer this place to any other in this moment. So you can't say these rules don't work.
Oh fucking boy, no. What even is that logic
We have a bunch of tabs open on a bunch of other social sites and forums. We don’t prefer HN to any other place, we just think something about it sucks badly enough to express our disdain of it.
Oh fucking boy, no. What even is that logic
We have a bunch of tabs open on a bunch of other social sites and forums. We don’t prefer HN to any other place, we just think something about it sucks badly enough to express our disdain of it.
[deleted]
Overton Window 201
Moloch is always and everywhere.
Moloch is always and everywhere.
If you like fiction and satire, China Dream by Ma Jiang is good.
If I was holding Jack Ma in captivity, I would definitely ask him to do this just for the benefits of doing insider trading on his appearances
If you had the power to hold Jack Ma in captivity, you'd have 1000 other ways to do insider trading, or even bigger access to the market...
Anyone with a gun can hold anyone else, you don't need to be "powerful".
This is certainly not true if the "anyone else" is Jack Ma. If I gave you gun, and asked you to "hold" Jeff Bezos, you would certainly not be able to do it.
Where am I? Where is Bezos? What are the additional hypothetical details of this scenario? Do I know how to use a gun in this scenario (I do not IRL)?
I've only met one billionaire, but he was definitely not guarded by anyone, and had I the inclination, skills, and firepower, I could have easily taken him at gunpoint.
I don't accept the notion that Jack Ma is guarded 100% of the time, that's movie fiction.
I've only met one billionaire, but he was definitely not guarded by anyone, and had I the inclination, skills, and firepower, I could have easily taken him at gunpoint.
I don't accept the notion that Jack Ma is guarded 100% of the time, that's movie fiction.
> Anyone with a gun can hold anyone else, you don't need to be "powerful".
> had I the inclination, skills, and firepower
That's a very big "had I", and certainly not "anyone with a gun" as you said previously.
Let me put it this way: suppose you're Bezos or Jack Ma and had access to unimaginable resources, comfort, and security from the best of the best. Surely it would be absolutely trivial to hire someone so that the vast, vast, majority of people with guns wouldn't be able to get to you, no matter how hard they tried, even _with_ so-called inclination and skills?
I'm not even referring to having guard detail around them all the time; when you're that important and hundreds of billions of market cap depends on your very existence, their entire schedules will be mapped down to the smallest detail to minimize risk of harm to them, since if they were to get kidnapped, it would immediately wipe billions off the stock price. Do you really think that the only reason Bezos hasn't been captured is because ordinary people with guns just chose not to do so, and if anyone wanted, they could just kidnap Bezos easily? What percent of ordinary people like you or I have "skills" and "inclination" that can beat that hired by Bezos' billions?
> had I the inclination, skills, and firepower
That's a very big "had I", and certainly not "anyone with a gun" as you said previously.
Let me put it this way: suppose you're Bezos or Jack Ma and had access to unimaginable resources, comfort, and security from the best of the best. Surely it would be absolutely trivial to hire someone so that the vast, vast, majority of people with guns wouldn't be able to get to you, no matter how hard they tried, even _with_ so-called inclination and skills?
I'm not even referring to having guard detail around them all the time; when you're that important and hundreds of billions of market cap depends on your very existence, their entire schedules will be mapped down to the smallest detail to minimize risk of harm to them, since if they were to get kidnapped, it would immediately wipe billions off the stock price. Do you really think that the only reason Bezos hasn't been captured is because ordinary people with guns just chose not to do so, and if anyone wanted, they could just kidnap Bezos easily? What percent of ordinary people like you or I have "skills" and "inclination" that can beat that hired by Bezos' billions?
I hear you, I just don't think it's as common to hire a team of bodyguards as media portrays it to be, and yeah I generally do think the only reason Bezos remains safe is because nobody has earnestly tried, not because he's got some hyper-sophisticated security apparatus at his command (and even if he did, I still think it's largely theater, and a person who actually manages to get a gun in proximity of Bezos/any person generally won't have much of a problem using it at that point). People just aren't looking to kill one another, generally, even the more polarizing people.
But message received -- Jack Ma probably would have a team of bodyguards, and the people who could get past that probably wouldn't need to manipulate markets using his appearance on a conference call to make money.
I was wrong, I see that now!
But message received -- Jack Ma probably would have a team of bodyguards, and the people who could get past that probably wouldn't need to manipulate markets using his appearance on a conference call to make money.
I was wrong, I see that now!
It is not so much about having a team of bodyguards 24/7 with you, but about having a security team in the back office that will oversee all the details of your schedule so that you just are not in a scenario where this is possible. (Eg no appearance at predictable place and time etc )
Many billionaires, famous people, and ex-leaders of countries have bodyguards when they go out in public. Bezos has bodyguards.
Some billionaires are relatively unknown, so maybe they get away without needing that.
Some billionaires are relatively unknown, so maybe they get away without needing that.
[deleted]
If the "anyone else" is a billionaire, then, yes, you do, even to get access to them to point the gun, bypass the guards, abduct them, and keep them.
And we're talking about state-level actors here doing the holding, not some random nobody with a gun. Those don't have any need for "insider trading".
And we're talking about state-level actors here doing the holding, not some random nobody with a gun. Those don't have any need for "insider trading".
You're talking about state-level actors, not me. My point is that it doesn't have to be the Chinese government (though it probably is, if he's being held and isn't just in hiding).
Disappointingly paranoid comments jumping to conclusions here. It's equally possible that Ma's disappearance is self-imposed after making an out of character speech that was not well received by investors and regulators alike. We don't know either way at this point. To quote Leo Lewis of the FT: "His miscalculation now looks spectacular, even by his astral standards of showmanship." [1]
1. https://www.ft.com/content/b3a94f55-5e44-417f-a869-a542d0527...
1. https://www.ft.com/content/b3a94f55-5e44-417f-a869-a542d0527...
echelon(2)
> In the 50-second video, Ma, wearing a navy pullover, spoke from a room with grey walls, a large painting and floral arrangements. It was not clear where the room was. [...] Alibaba’s Hong Kong-listed shares jumped to finish 8.5% higher on the news...
I am pretty sure all sane people knowing that this video is going online had hold a huge long position on Alibaba shares.
I am pretty sure all sane people knowing that this video is going online had hold a huge long position on Alibaba shares.
Just knowing with certainty that Jack Ma is alive would have been enough to make a big options play.
Now I need to be convinced it is not a deepfake
I’m inclined to think no. If deepfakes weren’t a thing then there would be no need to fake something like this so I don’t think there’s be much reason to fake it now. Seems easier to just do the real thing.
I think the whole point of the messaging is to make it obvious what’s happened without explicitly saying it and a deepfake doesn’t help with that. If they had done something worse they would have done it deliberately and would want to prove it. Kind of like when the Russians assassinate some dissident and go on their news to say “we absolutely deny the allegations that so and so was assassinated but I guess it just shows what happens when you are a traitor”
I think the whole point of the messaging is to make it obvious what’s happened without explicitly saying it and a deepfake doesn’t help with that. If they had done something worse they would have done it deliberately and would want to prove it. Kind of like when the Russians assassinate some dissident and go on their news to say “we absolutely deny the allegations that so and so was assassinated but I guess it just shows what happens when you are a traitor”
Sassy Justice to investigate.
Maybe at some point we'll invent a new greeting (like waving your fingers before your face) to prove we're really the person on the screen.
No reason you can't "deepfake" that too. IMO, in the arms race of fakes vs detection technology, the fakes will inevitably win. Eventually, you won't be able to tell if content is fake at all. You'll just have to decide if you can trust the source or not.
Yeah, his face looks too small in the video, lol.
Could just be the camera lens but side by side photos it looks like they cropped the face in
So he only had one public event scheduled between late October and now? If he suddenly ended up in custody, you'd think he would have had more events set up then canceled.
> In the 50-second video, Ma, dressed in a navy pullover, spoke directly to the camera from a room with grey marble walls and a striped carpet. It was not clear from the video or the Tianmu News article where he was speaking from.
Uh, resurfacing from a fancy prison cell, perhaps? Can anyone find the video?
EDIT: Here's the raw video: https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/13517514568277196....
If you watch his eye movements, it looks like he's reading from a script.
Uh, resurfacing from a fancy prison cell, perhaps? Can anyone find the video?
EDIT: Here's the raw video: https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/13517514568277196....
If you watch his eye movements, it looks like he's reading from a script.
How much more mental gymnastics do we need? I think it's time to accept that he WASN'T jailed rather than trying to forcefully shoehorn the facts into a 'but China still bad' narrative.
The HN commentary went from 'Jack Ma is a national security threat' to 'Jack Ma is a poor victim of the CCP will will never be seen again' to 'this is fake, he is still jailed'. If he shows up someone else in person next time, will people say that the CCP staged that too? It's getting too ridiculous.
Cyrus Janssen, an expat who has worked in China for 12 years, blogged about this. I think he has a much more accurate view of what happened. Jack Ma was laying low, not jailed. And the rrason why his comments pissed off people is because the phase of development China is now in, rather than a generic "thou shall not criticize the party" https://cyrusjanssen.substack.com/p/trump-free-speech-and-wh...
In contrast to China's reputation here in the west, the govt actually DOES listen to criticism. Yes they censor at the same time. Calling for violence and overthrow of the govt is not allowed. But at the same time they do listen, and for the past 20 years they've continuously reformed policy based on citizen's criticism on social media, or those submitted via official channels. The key is to be constructive, and to criticize policy rather than people.
This also applies to this latest incident. Yes it bugged a lot of people in the government, but at the same time they're really looking into the actual criticism made and whether there's a need for reform.
I am from China and I have family in China.
The HN commentary went from 'Jack Ma is a national security threat' to 'Jack Ma is a poor victim of the CCP will will never be seen again' to 'this is fake, he is still jailed'. If he shows up someone else in person next time, will people say that the CCP staged that too? It's getting too ridiculous.
Cyrus Janssen, an expat who has worked in China for 12 years, blogged about this. I think he has a much more accurate view of what happened. Jack Ma was laying low, not jailed. And the rrason why his comments pissed off people is because the phase of development China is now in, rather than a generic "thou shall not criticize the party" https://cyrusjanssen.substack.com/p/trump-free-speech-and-wh...
In contrast to China's reputation here in the west, the govt actually DOES listen to criticism. Yes they censor at the same time. Calling for violence and overthrow of the govt is not allowed. But at the same time they do listen, and for the past 20 years they've continuously reformed policy based on citizen's criticism on social media, or those submitted via official channels. The key is to be constructive, and to criticize policy rather than people.
This also applies to this latest incident. Yes it bugged a lot of people in the government, but at the same time they're really looking into the actual criticism made and whether there's a need for reform.
I am from China and I have family in China.
So... where's multi-billionaire Xiao Jianhua? After being abducted from the Four Seasons in Hong Kong by the CCP, he popped up to explain he was seeking medical treatment on the mainland (haha) three years ago, and nobody's heard from him since. Also laying low? Or do you think he's discovered a new love of mining rare earth minerals in Xinjiang?
C'mon now, this isn't exactly some big exoneration one way or the other, is it? This happens from time to time. We both know there's a list of famous and semi-famous people as long as your arm you haven't heard from in a while.
Where's Fan Bingbing? Where's the former head of Interpol, Meng Hongwei? [2] Think they too have discovered a sudden need for mainland medical treatment -- or do you think it's more likely they may have discovered a passion for mining minerals also?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/xiao-jianhua-c...
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-06/the-people-who-china-...
C'mon now, this isn't exactly some big exoneration one way or the other, is it? This happens from time to time. We both know there's a list of famous and semi-famous people as long as your arm you haven't heard from in a while.
Where's Fan Bingbing? Where's the former head of Interpol, Meng Hongwei? [2] Think they too have discovered a sudden need for mainland medical treatment -- or do you think it's more likely they may have discovered a passion for mining minerals also?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/xiao-jianhua-c...
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-06/the-people-who-china-...
Also Gui Minhai, Chen Qiushi, the 12 HK residents, countless protestors...surely China has a tolerant government according to this guy.
And where's Chen Qiushi -- or any of the other journalists who covered the draconian coronavirus measures taken in China, who suddenly disappeared a year ago?
[deleted]
Fan Bingbing has made multiple public appearances.
Also, Dr. Shi Zhengli (石正丽) the famous Wuhan lab researcher has not seen for while, except for some "jack ma" style video interview.
I read his comments, and have studied Chinese and China for years. While he took a pretty slight risk, (it seems) he only criticized other business owners and potential regulatory ideas. Honestly, his comments were so mild that you'd probably regularly hear similar stuff _coming from the regulators themselves_ in most other countries (developed or no).
I'm not sure where on HN you found the sentiment Jack Ma was considered a national security threat. I think you're painting a picture here that is very bizarre, and not supplying the context necessary to understand why.
I'm not sure where on HN you found the sentiment Jack Ma was considered a national security threat. I think you're painting a picture here that is very bizarre, and not supplying the context necessary to understand why.
> I'm not sure where on HN you found the sentiment Jack Ma was considered a national security threat.
During the HN submission about Ant's IPO, before it was halted. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24910410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24906771
During the HN submission about Ant's IPO, before it was halted. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24910410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24906771
One of those was flagged, so it's pretty clearly "not-HN". The other says it's a state-run business (which, I mean, lots of people disagreed with that). That's miles away from saying something is a security threat [edit: it's worth saying, for those not clicking the link, he compares it to Saudi Aramco, which is, I mean, I've never heard that IPO described as a security threat either, so there's not really even any implications I can detect]. Nowhere in there is the narrative you're describing.
sebmellen(1)
As I understand it he's been out of the public eye since October, after making comments critical of the Chinese government, and now the government is making noise about nationalizing his company. I agree that's not conclusive proof that the government has done something to him, but speculating that they have hardly seems like "mental gymnastics".
Anyone who is living in China, citizen or expat, is going to toe the party line (literally) since the consequences for not doing so these days can be severe.
We’ve been through this before with other business people or defrocked public officials: Jack Ma is currently having a peaceful relaxing vacation at one of the party’s many secure resorts (Chinese have memes too). Whether he comes out of this like Fan Binbin or not isn’t anything we will know until it happens.
We’ve been through this before with other business people or defrocked public officials: Jack Ma is currently having a peaceful relaxing vacation at one of the party’s many secure resorts (Chinese have memes too). Whether he comes out of this like Fan Binbin or not isn’t anything we will know until it happens.
First, it's "toe the line."
Second, you're essentially saying that if the other person lives in China it doesn't matter what they say. Think about that for a second, and also about whether or not it really matters where they live if you've put some critical thought into their arguments. Granted some of what he says is subjective, but for something like this that's all you can really get. But if you've already decided the enemy must be wrong then there's no point discussing anything.
Third, the OP you were replying to said he lived in China, but according to his Twitter he's not living in China. So does that meet your standards of considering his opinions?
Second, you're essentially saying that if the other person lives in China it doesn't matter what they say. Think about that for a second, and also about whether or not it really matters where they live if you've put some critical thought into their arguments. Granted some of what he says is subjective, but for something like this that's all you can really get. But if you've already decided the enemy must be wrong then there's no point discussing anything.
Third, the OP you were replying to said he lived in China, but according to his Twitter he's not living in China. So does that meet your standards of considering his opinions?
> Anyone who is living in China, citizen or expat
Neither myself, nor Cyrus Janssen, are currently living in China. This is my genuine opinion, believe it or not. Nobody forces me, nobody pays me. I thought people are supposed to be "against the CCP but support the Chinese people". Is your support limited to Chinese people who are against the CCP? Why do you not reflect for a while on why someone like me, who has grown up with western culture and has independently investigated China, is not as anti-China as you are? Why is it hard to accept that maybe some of of core assumptions you have about China is wrong?
And no, you don't go to jail for not toeing the party line. That's not how it works. They censor you if your views are stirring up social unrest or calling for overthrow. But they don't force you to say things they want.
At least, that's the case for average citizen. I suppose if you're a high-level business executive with many ties to the government, then things become more complex. But that's not very different from the west, is it? If you piss off a government customer, you won't be jailed, but do you think they'd be happy to continue doing business with you?
Neither myself, nor Cyrus Janssen, are currently living in China. This is my genuine opinion, believe it or not. Nobody forces me, nobody pays me. I thought people are supposed to be "against the CCP but support the Chinese people". Is your support limited to Chinese people who are against the CCP? Why do you not reflect for a while on why someone like me, who has grown up with western culture and has independently investigated China, is not as anti-China as you are? Why is it hard to accept that maybe some of of core assumptions you have about China is wrong?
And no, you don't go to jail for not toeing the party line. That's not how it works. They censor you if your views are stirring up social unrest or calling for overthrow. But they don't force you to say things they want.
At least, that's the case for average citizen. I suppose if you're a high-level business executive with many ties to the government, then things become more complex. But that's not very different from the west, is it? If you piss off a government customer, you won't be jailed, but do you think they'd be happy to continue doing business with you?
Just a note — there is basically zero chance that Jeff Bezos would face any sort of governmental action if he "pissed off a guy in a government department," however influential that person may be. AWS just blocked Parler, and I'm sure our current president — arguably the most powerful man on Earth (until tomorrow) — was not very happy with that.
We don't see Jeff Bezos in hiding for doing that, nor would he have to go into hiding for anything far less.
I don't say this to accuse you (@dang trying not to flamewar) — do you not see that this argument is a little disingenuous? If you don't, I'd love to hear your thinking on why.
We don't see Jeff Bezos in hiding for doing that, nor would he have to go into hiding for anything far less.
I don't say this to accuse you (@dang trying not to flamewar) — do you not see that this argument is a little disingenuous? If you don't, I'd love to hear your thinking on why.
Well, I'd just have to respectfully disagree then. As someone who runs my own company, I know better than to pick a quarrel with my customers, even if I don't agree with those customers on a political or whatever level.
It's not at all strange to have multiple factions in an organizations who are after multiple vendors, as tool for an internal power war. Maybe if I piss off the guy who chose me as vendor, then his rivals will use that fact against him.
My point is, social relations are complex. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
It's not at all strange to have multiple factions in an organizations who are after multiple vendors, as tool for an internal power war. Maybe if I piss off the guy who chose me as vendor, then his rivals will use that fact against him.
My point is, social relations are complex. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
>My point is, social relations are complex. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
In general it does mean freedom from legal consequences and government interference, with few exceptions.
In general it does mean freedom from legal consequences and government interference, with few exceptions.
Is that really good enough? Why is freedom from government interference all you care about?
It's not all that I care about, but the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I have recourse to that force if another private entity harms me. Who do I have recourse to if the government harms me?
I consider freedom of speech a baseline, and I think it's one of the only things the US Constitution got right.
I consider freedom of speech a baseline, and I think it's one of the only things the US Constitution got right.
> And no, you don't go to jail for not toeing the party line. That's not how it works.
No you don’t. But you might find your work visa renewal denied. Things can get inconvenient really quickly, as a foreigner you don’t want to be a grass mud horse while in China, river crab is the only way to go.
> If you're Jeff Bezos and you piss off the guy in a government department...
Then Jeff Bezos sues the government, which is exactly what happened.
No you don’t. But you might find your work visa renewal denied. Things can get inconvenient really quickly, as a foreigner you don’t want to be a grass mud horse while in China, river crab is the only way to go.
> If you're Jeff Bezos and you piss off the guy in a government department...
Then Jeff Bezos sues the government, which is exactly what happened.
> No you don’t. But you might find your work visa renewal denied.
Daniel Dumbrill, a vlogger in China, literally criticized the Guangzhou government for its negligent behavior against African workers. I did the same. We did this more than a year ago and we're both still fine.
> Then Jeff Bezos sues the government, which is exactly what happened.
You missed the point. You can't sue the government into continuing to do business with you.
Daniel Dumbrill, a vlogger in China, literally criticized the Guangzhou government for its negligent behavior against African workers. I did the same. We did this more than a year ago and we're both still fine.
> Then Jeff Bezos sues the government, which is exactly what happened.
You missed the point. You can't sue the government into continuing to do business with you.
Just because it doesn’t happen to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, or that it could happen. If you have a 60k/month job, you can’t really take the risk that your visa won’t be renewed.
> You missed the point. You can't sue the government into continuing to do business with you.
No, of course you can, and that is what Amazon is doing.
> You missed the point. You can't sue the government into continuing to do business with you.
No, of course you can, and that is what Amazon is doing.
> You can't sue the government into continuing to do business with you.
You can do that actually.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/22/amazon-files-suit-protesting...
https://www.onmsft.com/news/corrected-evaluation-flaw-may-fa...
You can do that actually.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/22/amazon-files-suit-protesting...
https://www.onmsft.com/news/corrected-evaluation-flaw-may-fa...
It's extremely unlikely that the founder and CEO of a $600B publicly traded company would completely disappear for several months on his own initiative. A short interview or a couple of emails would have dispelled all speculation that he was detained without agitating the Chinese government.
He is not the CEO. I don't think he holds any official title since late 2019.
Given China's history to staging videos / forging evidence / faking suicides for oppositions [1][2], I'd say this is a valid concern.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gui_Minhai#Release_from_PSB_cu...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gui_Minhai#Release_from_PSB_cu...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books
Thanks. I've been on HN for more than a decade and this thread is just mind-boggling to read. Whatever people think is indicated by the facts of Jack Ma's case, it should be reconciled with the China's established history of abductions and disappearances, the reality of which are not disputed.
> rather than trying to forcefully shoehorn the facts into a 'but China still bad' narrative.
And it is bad. The country run by a freaking communist party, if somebody didn't notice. And we are not even mentioning gulag, and hookers.
> In contrast to China's reputation here in the west, the govt actually DOES listen to criticism.
Because it is afraid of it?
> The key is to be constructive, and to criticize policy rather than people.
And follow the example of thousands of Chinese rural petitioners "constructively" sent to gulags.
> Calling for violence and overthrow of the govt is not allowed.
But how else would people stage a revolution against Beijing?
And it is bad. The country run by a freaking communist party, if somebody didn't notice. And we are not even mentioning gulag, and hookers.
> In contrast to China's reputation here in the west, the govt actually DOES listen to criticism.
Because it is afraid of it?
> The key is to be constructive, and to criticize policy rather than people.
And follow the example of thousands of Chinese rural petitioners "constructively" sent to gulags.
> Calling for violence and overthrow of the govt is not allowed.
But how else would people stage a revolution against Beijing?
Look, if you don't believe me, at least believe in Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat and ex-UN Security Council head. He's spoken extensively about this in his book "Has China Won?" and can corroborate what I said.
In the past 40 years, the freedoms of Chinese people have exploded. People could not choose what to wear, where to work, what to eat, where to live. Now they can. Millions travel world-wide every year, and all of them return home. Why would they do that if China is as bad as you say?
As for "a revolution against Beijing": prof. Mahbubani says that there are actually hundreds of protests in China every year. But those people aren't protesting against the central government: they're trying to get the central government's attention, to help them with their grievances. The central government is very popular. According to a poll by Harvard, who collected data over a 15 year period through anonymous in-person interviews, support for the central government has increased in this 15 year period. In 2016 (last year of the study), it was at an all-time high: 96% of respondents said they're satisfied or very satisfied with the central government.
What makes you believe you are more right than prof. Mahbubani and Harvard?
In the past 40 years, the freedoms of Chinese people have exploded. People could not choose what to wear, where to work, what to eat, where to live. Now they can. Millions travel world-wide every year, and all of them return home. Why would they do that if China is as bad as you say?
As for "a revolution against Beijing": prof. Mahbubani says that there are actually hundreds of protests in China every year. But those people aren't protesting against the central government: they're trying to get the central government's attention, to help them with their grievances. The central government is very popular. According to a poll by Harvard, who collected data over a 15 year period through anonymous in-person interviews, support for the central government has increased in this 15 year period. In 2016 (last year of the study), it was at an all-time high: 96% of respondents said they're satisfied or very satisfied with the central government.
What makes you believe you are more right than prof. Mahbubani and Harvard?
[deleted]
> and all of them return home. Why would they do that if China is as bad as you say?
Because getting a Visa that lets you stay abroad is actually really hard
Because getting a Visa that lets you stay abroad is actually really hard
This. We've seen this in East Germany. Sure they gave you a visa, they let you out. Your family stayed. To make sure you come back. Some people screwed over their family. Most people played along and came back.
Are you saying East Germany was awesome and things should have stayed as they were?
Are you saying East Germany was awesome and things should have stayed as they were?
[deleted]
China is not east Germany.
Heck today's China is not the 70s China.
I'm more afraid of going to the US, where any Chinese person can be labeled a 'CCP spy' for no reason.
Heck today's China is not the 70s China.
I'm more afraid of going to the US, where any Chinese person can be labeled a 'CCP spy' for no reason.
A bad party that is improving is still bad.
That's tautologically true of course. What is far less clear cut is whether it's preferable for someone (and their children) to stay in a country with a bad regime that's improving or in one with a good regime that's deteriorating. It depends on many factors (levels of goodness/badness, rate of improvement/deterioration, persistence and stability of trends, how one is personally affected by goodness/badness/improvements/deterioration).
To make it more concrete, there are people (granted, overwhelmingly ethnically Had Chinese fluent in the language) who voluntarily choose to reside in China over the US or EU, and I don't think they are irrational about it.
To make it more concrete, there are people (granted, overwhelmingly ethnically Had Chinese fluent in the language) who voluntarily choose to reside in China over the US or EU, and I don't think they are irrational about it.
So what are the better choices? Do you think that if someone were to liquidate the CCP top members, plunging the country into chaos, that the Chinese would be better off?
It's easy to say "X is bad" when you don't have to care about practical consequences, like whether there are better alternatives, why we're in a suboptimal situation in the first place, and how to get to a better place.
It's easy to say "X is bad" when you don't have to care about practical consequences, like whether there are better alternatives, why we're in a suboptimal situation in the first place, and how to get to a better place.
> Do you think that if someone were to liquidate the CCP top members, plunging the country into chaos, that the Chinese would be better off?
Yes, very much so.
Your presumption is that if CPCs rule, whose rule is a chaos itself, disappears, there will be more chaos?
We are talking about immediate ruinous effects for the majority of Chinese every day communists stay in power.
The moment it stops, lawless land repossessions instantaneously stop, house confiscations stop, fake cases, and expropriations against entrepreneurs stop.
> It's easy to say "X is bad" when you don't have to care about practical consequences
Practical consequences of letting communists to stay in power are millions left destitute every year after their land, property, and businesses are stolen.
Yes, very much so.
Your presumption is that if CPCs rule, whose rule is a chaos itself, disappears, there will be more chaos?
We are talking about immediate ruinous effects for the majority of Chinese every day communists stay in power.
The moment it stops, lawless land repossessions instantaneously stop, house confiscations stop, fake cases, and expropriations against entrepreneurs stop.
> It's easy to say "X is bad" when you don't have to care about practical consequences
Practical consequences of letting communists to stay in power are millions left destitute every year after their land, property, and businesses are stolen.
>sent to gulags
The GULAG was a specific USSR agency and their camps. You can't just call any prison system you personally don't like GULAG.
The GULAG was a specific USSR agency and their camps. You can't just call any prison system you personally don't like GULAG.
For all I know most things I know about China could be wrong - I'm certain that a lot of it is (seeing our media uncritically reporting the Adrian Zenz stuff has been mindblowing), but how could I possibly know whether something is true when there is so much disinfo going around? Like, what gives you the confidence that you're not just being fed propaganda yourself?
Quite naive so.
The thinking that one can at least understand the rationale of not killing a hen laying golden eggs has no place in China.
The reality is exact the opposite, and elites routinely keeping shooting the country, and themselves in the foot. Why should they care?
Any ranked party member half way the ladder already has enough privileges to swim in lard for the rest of his life.
I was pretty much there when Shenzhen govt bulldozed close to 10000 factories in between 2009, and 2012 for universiade vanities. That was one third of regions industry! One third
That was single most economically suicidal move I've seen any government do, and that was right after the global financial crisis.
That made a double digit dip in country's exports, and industrial output, so big it was.
The reality is exact the opposite, and elites routinely keeping shooting the country, and themselves in the foot. Why should they care?
Any ranked party member half way the ladder already has enough privileges to swim in lard for the rest of his life.
I was pretty much there when Shenzhen govt bulldozed close to 10000 factories in between 2009, and 2012 for universiade vanities. That was one third of regions industry! One third
That was single most economically suicidal move I've seen any government do, and that was right after the global financial crisis.
That made a double digit dip in country's exports, and industrial output, so big it was.
You may love China but CCP is not China.
You think that if the KMT had won, that China would have been better off? Do you have any idea how corrupt the KMT was? The CCP won for a reason.
CCP is mainland China. According to a poll by Harvard, who collected data over a 15 year period through anonymous in-person interviews, support for the central government has increased in this 15 year period. In 2016 (last year of the study), it was at an all-time high: 96% of respondents said they're satisfied or very satisfied with the central government.
That doesn't mean I "love the CCP". But is there any other party out there who actually advances the interests of Chinese civilization?
CCP is mainland China. According to a poll by Harvard, who collected data over a 15 year period through anonymous in-person interviews, support for the central government has increased in this 15 year period. In 2016 (last year of the study), it was at an all-time high: 96% of respondents said they're satisfied or very satisfied with the central government.
That doesn't mean I "love the CCP". But is there any other party out there who actually advances the interests of Chinese civilization?
This is an important distinction.
China is awesome. The CCP sucks.
China is awesome. The CCP sucks.
I'm not sure if, or how, one should engage with an apologist for a tiranical, genocidal, dictatorial regime.
I'll tell you how: by being open to the notion that maybe "tiranical, genocidal and dictatorial" are false. And that Chinese people have different values, which are equally valid, but that are nevertheless not forced upon you.
If you actually want to discuss this, I'd be happy to. But I need to know whether you are genuine, or whether you merely mean to diss me.
If you actually want to discuss this, I'd be happy to. But I need to know whether you are genuine, or whether you merely mean to diss me.
[deleted]
accept that the tiranical, genocidal, dictatorial regime is appreciated by many in china.
He could be running a wonky business financially, and a victim of something else.
I just want to say I support your views, which are obviously true to anyone remotely knowledgeable about China. Although that is apparently a rarity.
> How much more mental gymnastics do we need?
The only mental gymnastics I see are in the post I am replying to.
The only mental gymnastics I see are in the post I am replying to.
[deleted]
lxe(6)
echelon(2)
sebmellen(2)
I think that from their several actions that China/CCP is not the best example of democracy and criticism acceptance
So no I don't buy the retoric of misunderstood China
> I am from China and I have family in China.
So you're not behind the great firewall and don't need to contend with official internet censorship.
So no I don't buy the retoric of misunderstood China
> I am from China and I have family in China.
So you're not behind the great firewall and don't need to contend with official internet censorship.
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. We've had to ask you this many times. Nationalistic flamewar is particularly unwelcome here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sorry about this Dang, the line is blurry on some topics and sometimes we get carried over and go outside the topic of the conversation.
> It has been perfectly clear with the Chinese negligence around Covid
Urgh, let me tell you some facts.
On February 1 2020, I travelled from China (not Wuhan) back to the Netherlands, having aborted my holiday early. Wuhan was in lockdown for a week at that point, and my flight to the Netherlands was the very last one I could get. At that point, the WHO also declared global emergency.
I arrived in Germany and the Netherlands. What happened in the airports? No temperature checks or other checks. Nobody who took note of my name for contact tracing. Nothing.
Back in the Netherlands, I called the CDC: can I get tested? Reply: no, not even if I pay for it myself. I ask: do I need to quarantine myself? Reply: nope.
I didn't trust that. Chinese media has been raging for weeks about how infectious and dangerous it was, and that it could be spread asymptomatically. So I voluntarily quarantined myself and my family for 2 weeks. Turned out I wasn't infected.
Up until March or April or so, I saw on tv and newspapers and how multiple western governments called covid just a flu, that we're "well prepared", even criticizing the lockdown in Wuhan as a human rights violation.
You want to talk negligence? Okay, China could have done a better job, but let's say they were earlier by 2 weeks and reported to WHO mid-Dec rather than late-Dec. Would that have changed anything when for months the west totally dismissed the virus as being dangerous, and gleed at China's misfortune?
> and how they treated the doctors that sounded the alarm
Li Wenliang was not jailed. He was reprimanded by the police, and could go back to work the next day. He wasn't the first one: the first doctor who said something was Jiang Jixian, whose work led to the WHO escalation on Dec 31, 1 day after Li Wenliang said something. The Chinese court later ruled that the police's treatment of Li Wenliang was unjustified. The police then apologized.
See also: "Some whistleblowers are more equal than others" https://www.mango-press.com/some-whistleblowers-are-more-equ...
> the HK issue and with the Uighur concentration camps
These are whole different, and rather complicated topics. I could go into them, but I need to know from you: do you actually want to discuss, or is this meant as a diss to me?
> So you're not behind the great firewall huh? Reminds me of Chinese agents bullying Chinese students in Canada to not badmouth the government
So what? I don't "bully" others for disagreeing with me about China, I talk to them. If you ask me whether those students should bully, then I'd say no: they should discuss. That's something they need to learn.
But the same applies to a great many people in the west, who despite being raised in a free society, prefer to cancel rather than talk.
Still, that doesn't mean that those students' support for China is not genuine or legit.
Urgh, let me tell you some facts.
On February 1 2020, I travelled from China (not Wuhan) back to the Netherlands, having aborted my holiday early. Wuhan was in lockdown for a week at that point, and my flight to the Netherlands was the very last one I could get. At that point, the WHO also declared global emergency.
I arrived in Germany and the Netherlands. What happened in the airports? No temperature checks or other checks. Nobody who took note of my name for contact tracing. Nothing.
Back in the Netherlands, I called the CDC: can I get tested? Reply: no, not even if I pay for it myself. I ask: do I need to quarantine myself? Reply: nope.
I didn't trust that. Chinese media has been raging for weeks about how infectious and dangerous it was, and that it could be spread asymptomatically. So I voluntarily quarantined myself and my family for 2 weeks. Turned out I wasn't infected.
Up until March or April or so, I saw on tv and newspapers and how multiple western governments called covid just a flu, that we're "well prepared", even criticizing the lockdown in Wuhan as a human rights violation.
You want to talk negligence? Okay, China could have done a better job, but let's say they were earlier by 2 weeks and reported to WHO mid-Dec rather than late-Dec. Would that have changed anything when for months the west totally dismissed the virus as being dangerous, and gleed at China's misfortune?
> and how they treated the doctors that sounded the alarm
Li Wenliang was not jailed. He was reprimanded by the police, and could go back to work the next day. He wasn't the first one: the first doctor who said something was Jiang Jixian, whose work led to the WHO escalation on Dec 31, 1 day after Li Wenliang said something. The Chinese court later ruled that the police's treatment of Li Wenliang was unjustified. The police then apologized.
See also: "Some whistleblowers are more equal than others" https://www.mango-press.com/some-whistleblowers-are-more-equ...
> the HK issue and with the Uighur concentration camps
These are whole different, and rather complicated topics. I could go into them, but I need to know from you: do you actually want to discuss, or is this meant as a diss to me?
> So you're not behind the great firewall huh? Reminds me of Chinese agents bullying Chinese students in Canada to not badmouth the government
So what? I don't "bully" others for disagreeing with me about China, I talk to them. If you ask me whether those students should bully, then I'd say no: they should discuss. That's something they need to learn.
But the same applies to a great many people in the west, who despite being raised in a free society, prefer to cancel rather than talk.
Still, that doesn't mean that those students' support for China is not genuine or legit.
You raise an important point. We see a lot of criticism of China on Covid despite them being at the forefront of the battlefield. On the other hand, large parts of the world reacted at a snail pace despite having a WHO warning. If we were to follow the same yardstick as China, the rest of the world won’t do well on it.
I don't think it matters that he's reading off of a script. Imagine Bezos in the same situation, do you honestly think he wouldn't delegate the responsibility of speechwriting to his team of publicists?
If none of us heard from Bezos for months and the resurfacing video appeared to be him reading off a script, there would be questions. The optics would be off.
The optics are meant to be off. That he received some kind of detention and punishment by the ccp is meant to be obvious (but they cannot admit to it so it’s just heavily implied)
When was the last time you heard from Bezos in a public appearance?
Fair point, but his speech also seems forced, and the location is quite strange.
If Bezos or Gates were to give an address like this, they'd have a great camera setup in their fancy home office with good lighting.
For reference, take a look at Gates appearing on the Daily Show: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iyFT8qXcOrM.
Ma looks the opposite here.
If Bezos or Gates were to give an address like this, they'd have a great camera setup in their fancy home office with good lighting.
For reference, take a look at Gates appearing on the Daily Show: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iyFT8qXcOrM.
Ma looks the opposite here.
At this point you're just applying your cultural bias.
Compared to Jack Ma's usual public image (see below), a frumpy pullover and a dingy room does seem rather odd.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jack+ma&iax=images&ia=images
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jack+ma&iax=images&ia=images
Yes but he was comparing to how Bezos and Musk appear.
Everyone is not how they normally appear because of the pandemic, and Ma addresses the reason why he's just video taping himself in a room because of this. Stop armchair speculating.
Everyone is not how they normally appear because of the pandemic, and Ma addresses the reason why he's just video taping himself in a room because of this. Stop armchair speculating.
The odd outbreak aside (and Shijiazhuang is nowhere near Hangzhou), lockdowns are long over in China, there's no need for Ma to cower in a basement.
That said, I actually agree with you that the "hurr durr CCP torture cell" comments are overblown. It's entirely plausible that he's keeping a low profile for a while, if likely in response to some rather heavy-handed advice.
That said, I actually agree with you that the "hurr durr CCP torture cell" comments are overblown. It's entirely plausible that he's keeping a low profile for a while, if likely in response to some rather heavy-handed advice.
My problem is the OP is trying to insinuate things based off pure speculation, cultural bias, and irrelevant details. He may as well have said that there was an excess of red pixels in the video and that means it must be reflections off of communist symbolism in the room.
So yes we are in agreement that the OP's comment is adds no substance to the conversation and is pure "hurr durr CCP torture cell" that just furthers the stereotypes of China.
So yes we are in agreement that the OP's comment is adds no substance to the conversation and is pure "hurr durr CCP torture cell" that just furthers the stereotypes of China.
No, we're not in agreement on that. It's clear that Ma's dress & appearance in the video was distinctly at odds with his own usual profile, no need for any stereotypes or comparisons to other people.
> distinctly at odds with his own usual profile
This is a picture from today.
https://x0.ifengimg.com/ucms/2021_04/C5A7B512BF72106A6497177...
Same event from 2019.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/09/10/world/10alibaba/m...
He upgraded from sweatpants to khakis. I think people are over reading the situation. All the usual factors that gets someone disappeared is not present with Ma's current faux pas.
This is a picture from today.
https://x0.ifengimg.com/ucms/2021_04/C5A7B512BF72106A6497177...
Same event from 2019.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/09/10/world/10alibaba/m...
He upgraded from sweatpants to khakis. I think people are over reading the situation. All the usual factors that gets someone disappeared is not present with Ma's current faux pas.
Yes but he (OP) was specifically comparing to how Bezos and Musk appear and insinuating that someone from the Chinese culture must present themselves in the same way or there must be foul play.
Just to clarify, I'm not really in a position to analyze the meaning behind his current attire and choice of background relative to his past, so I'll take your word on your analysis of that.
Just to clarify, I'm not really in a position to analyze the meaning behind his current attire and choice of background relative to his past, so I'll take your word on your analysis of that.
It's about the status of people in the video and the general expectation of public of how they usually presented themselves. People of this caliber usually comes up with carefully craft image, along with good production. It's the same no matter where you live or born.
The Bezos and Gates example is just that, and example of famous people that we familiar with and that's it.
Chill man. Not everything is about race.
The Bezos and Gates example is just that, and example of famous people that we familiar with and that's it.
Chill man. Not everything is about race.
Your assertion doesn't even apply in Western culture, let alone generalization across cultures you probably know nothing about.
Most people would consider Elon to be eccentric, Paul Graham to not look like traditional VC, and these superficial aspects are frankly irrelevant. So why is it ok to use that to insinuate stereotypes and hand-wavy assertions of malfeasance.
Perhaps for you there is no consequence, but much like calling the coronavirus the "China virus", you're doing cultural damage by spreading negative stereotypes via fabricated or insinuated purely speculative assertions. The stereotype here is that China is associated with as some dystopian backwards society that has done no favors for its citizenry, which may or may not be true, but is definitely not defended by any objective evidence presented by the OP.
To flip the scenario, imagine if some random people from China commented about how the US elections seems like there was rampant fraud, without much supporting evidence. By lending credence to something without any concrete evidence you give it some air of legitimacy. When you do so by purely speculating on non-important things you've entered the realm of purely pushing an agenda with no substance.
Most people would consider Elon to be eccentric, Paul Graham to not look like traditional VC, and these superficial aspects are frankly irrelevant. So why is it ok to use that to insinuate stereotypes and hand-wavy assertions of malfeasance.
Perhaps for you there is no consequence, but much like calling the coronavirus the "China virus", you're doing cultural damage by spreading negative stereotypes via fabricated or insinuated purely speculative assertions. The stereotype here is that China is associated with as some dystopian backwards society that has done no favors for its citizenry, which may or may not be true, but is definitely not defended by any objective evidence presented by the OP.
To flip the scenario, imagine if some random people from China commented about how the US elections seems like there was rampant fraud, without much supporting evidence. By lending credence to something without any concrete evidence you give it some air of legitimacy. When you do so by purely speculating on non-important things you've entered the realm of purely pushing an agenda with no substance.
> The stereotype here is that China is associated with as some dystopian backwards society that has done no favors for its citizenry
I think people are mostly just trying to figure out what is going on with one of the richest/most powerful people in the world. There's not a lot of evidence to go on, so any scrap is potentially relevant. In your view, what are the best theories for his behavior?
And this isn't just an academic or social exercise; Alibaba jumped billions due to this appearance.
I think people are mostly just trying to figure out what is going on with one of the richest/most powerful people in the world. There's not a lot of evidence to go on, so any scrap is potentially relevant. In your view, what are the best theories for his behavior?
And this isn't just an academic or social exercise; Alibaba jumped billions due to this appearance.
OP is taking scraps and extrapolating completely out of proportion. I am simply pointing out his extrapolation is out of proportion. Just because there is a lack of info doesn't mean you should make up random things and give them credence.
Curious how so?
Assuming the standards of appearance for public figures are based on specific people from America of specific ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
I mean if I video conferenced with you right now you'd probably speculate I've been coopted by Communist powers because simply because my background isn't up to your standards (it'd be of a water heater and radon pipes since I'm in the basement).
I mean if I video conferenced with you right now you'd probably speculate I've been coopted by Communist powers because simply because my background isn't up to your standards (it'd be of a water heater and radon pipes since I'm in the basement).
Ok, but I didn't say that because he's Chinese, rather because he's a person of power and a multi-billionaire, and I was comparing him to other such people (not specifically Americans).
It may be unintentional, but you ultimately did end up comparing his appearance to the standard of two other people that happened not to be Chinese, but also using this as the premise for a theory of foul play. What if his appearance ends up having nothing to do with it? Then it ends up just being insulting, especially if culturally his appearance is considered normal.
Nothing to do with his appearance, but with his surroundings and things like his video quality. It's also just one observation of a number of very odd things — the oddest thing being that a multibillionaire has reappeared after 3 months of disappearance without making a mention of it! Especially after such widespread speculation, if there were nothing going on, you'd think he'd care to comment "hi everyone, I've just been on vacation," or something innocuous like that.
With all due respect, you are presumably also not the multibillionaire CEO of one of the world's largest Internet companies.
If I saw Zuck, Satya or Sundar do a video conference looking like they're chained to the radiator in somebody's basement, I'd also be kinda concerned. (At least for the latter two. Zuck, maybe not so much.)
If I saw Zuck, Satya or Sundar do a video conference looking like they're chained to the radiator in somebody's basement, I'd also be kinda concerned. (At least for the latter two. Zuck, maybe not so much.)
With all due respect if we judged people by their appearances we'd have discredited Paul Graham long ago for eschewing the traditional VC outfit.
The OP's comments about the appearance of the video is completely irrelevant and merely serving to throw speculative shade. For what it's worth, something probably did happen but his choice of webcam + background probably has nothing to do with it, but rampant speculation and false information is how we lead to the capital riots.
While the idea of gulags and "re-education camps" pervade Western perceptions of Chinese life, the reality is that conformity and centralized government is probably more dull than you think.
The OP's comments about the appearance of the video is completely irrelevant and merely serving to throw speculative shade. For what it's worth, something probably did happen but his choice of webcam + background probably has nothing to do with it, but rampant speculation and false information is how we lead to the capital riots.
While the idea of gulags and "re-education camps" pervade Western perceptions of Chinese life, the reality is that conformity and centralized government is probably more dull than you think.
What is up with the pen in his hand and his thumb movement?
Any ideas?
Thanks for digging up that video.
Telling that the Global Times (CPC-affiliated media) refers to him as the "former executive chairman of #Alibaba", and that he's making the video from some "rural teacher-themed social welfare event".
This isn't what normally happens to billionaire corporate executives, unless they've been convicted of violating the law.
Telling that the Global Times (CPC-affiliated media) refers to him as the "former executive chairman of #Alibaba", and that he's making the video from some "rural teacher-themed social welfare event".
This isn't what normally happens to billionaire corporate executives, unless they've been convicted of violating the law.
Good point — the whole matter really is quite strange, whatever one believes about China/the CPC aside. It does seem there's an established pipeline for this sort of "deplatforming" that the CPC has gotten very adept at pushing high-status people through.
Kill the chicken to scare the monkey.
It's less strange than time tested.
It's less strange than time tested.
Check this link out. Its the video from the Global Times Twitter Feed.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3118454/alibaba-f...
https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3118454/alibaba-f...
Thank you for that. The direct link to the tweet is https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/13517514568277196.... That does appear to be the best quality video available.
Looks like it could be some form of house arrest.
Looks like it could be some form of house arrest.
Most CEOs will read from a PR script at opening ceremonies for events and conferences. Apparently - as mentioned in the article and clarified in other comments here - it was a PR moment in a charitable event he’s been doing for a while.
No need to make it up to be more eerie than it is
No need to make it up to be more eerie than it is
Jesus, somehow, this looks terrifying.
That video looks strange to me - either it is a green screen or it has some compression artefacts that I have not seen before (or perhaps something else).
But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Isn’t it, “he loved the party?” Great line to end the story either way.
I don't know if Ma is quite at that point yet... Maybe they've put him through a short stint in Room 101.
You know I was thinking the same it’s more room 101 as well but the look in his eyes as pointed out by the parent comment.
Yeah dude. The Chinese are so technologically advanced, that they built an AI robot that looks exactly like the real Jack Ma.
The real Jack Ma is getting his kidneys harvested right now, because apparently, that’s what the CCP does to their own citizens (according to western media).
/s
The real Jack Ma is getting his kidneys harvested right now, because apparently, that’s what the CCP does to their own citizens (according to western media).
/s
They literally do harvest organs from their own citizens. That's not up for dispute. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-china-rights-idUS....
FLG affiliated china tribunal / ETAC is propaganda on par with epochetimes / qanon in terms of credibility. They launder their claims via US NGOs to MSM - turducken of creating misinformation. Prior to current China/FVEY spat, formal government level investigations by AU/US have found FLG sponsored reports to be non-credible.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120205064042/http://www.usemba...
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b6fe16df.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090620050738/http://www.americ...
At this time, Chinese political structure was _thoroughly_ infiltrated by CIA assets. There's also orthogonal indicators like amount of immuno-suppressant drugs in Chinese market cannot support a vast shadow organ harvesting system like FLG claims. There's a reason no credible institutions without FLG sponsorship have ever endorsed these findings. Including Mike Pompeo, at the urging for US lawmakers no less, who got drunk on FLG/epochtime coolaid. There's a special tier of ridiculous claims when even Pompeo can't spin it against China. FLG organ harvesting / vivisection has always been atrocity porn for useful idiots. It shouldn't be surprising these narratives are finally gaining traction during a period where media landscape is generating loads of them, when epochetimes is the #1 news paper on the appstore.
I say this as someone with several FLG family members who was prosecuted in China, they are delusional cultists. Everything is peaceful and good intensions until they convince themselves not to seek medical advice and dies from completely preventable illnesses.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120205064042/http://www.usemba...
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b6fe16df.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090620050738/http://www.americ...
At this time, Chinese political structure was _thoroughly_ infiltrated by CIA assets. There's also orthogonal indicators like amount of immuno-suppressant drugs in Chinese market cannot support a vast shadow organ harvesting system like FLG claims. There's a reason no credible institutions without FLG sponsorship have ever endorsed these findings. Including Mike Pompeo, at the urging for US lawmakers no less, who got drunk on FLG/epochtime coolaid. There's a special tier of ridiculous claims when even Pompeo can't spin it against China. FLG organ harvesting / vivisection has always been atrocity porn for useful idiots. It shouldn't be surprising these narratives are finally gaining traction during a period where media landscape is generating loads of them, when epochetimes is the #1 news paper on the appstore.
I say this as someone with several FLG family members who was prosecuted in China, they are delusional cultists. Everything is peaceful and good intensions until they convince themselves not to seek medical advice and dies from completely preventable illnesses.
Uh, should they be prosecuted or persecuted for holding cultist views or not seeking medical treatment? I don't think so, maybe you do. If so, we have irreconcilable differences...
Also — I didn't know the Epoch Times was the #1 newspaper in the App Store. I'm definitely not on that side of the political spectrum, if that's your worry. My concerns about China come more from a progressive perspective. That said, I do think the treatment of Falun Gong in China is atrocious, and I have some Falun Gong friends/acquaintances in the Netherlands (perhaps a bias).
Organ harvesting is a real problem in China, whether on a small scale (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55097424) or large scale (read through this article and souces https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_...).
Also — I didn't know the Epoch Times was the #1 newspaper in the App Store. I'm definitely not on that side of the political spectrum, if that's your worry. My concerns about China come more from a progressive perspective. That said, I do think the treatment of Falun Gong in China is atrocious, and I have some Falun Gong friends/acquaintances in the Netherlands (perhaps a bias).
Organ harvesting is a real problem in China, whether on a small scale (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55097424) or large scale (read through this article and souces https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_...).
You can find repression is immoral without wholesale endorsing fake narratives from questionable sources. I have very nice friends who are antivax, does not mean I endorse their views from infowars. FLG is no different. They're the one dissident group where human right lawyers in China, who risk their necks for a variety of causes, still could not corroborate their fantastic claims. Sometimes friends/acquaintances/family believe fake things, which is even less wild if said belief stems from being in a cult.
Black market organ trading is real problem but also stop gap solution in China, a country with abysmally low organ donation rates that's improving since reforms. Reference per capita transplant rate, China is 1/4 of west, however large the market, it isn't enough to provide even parity availability, not to mention large numbers goes towards transplant tourism for western customers who never seem to get appropriate denouncement from FLG despite their massive discourse power. It takes two to tango.
At the end of the day, there are irreconcilable priorities and moral calculus due to differences in culture and development. CN transplant system is moving in the right direction - FLG didn't convince west to stop getting transplants in China, CCP had to legislate against when the time was right. Things improve incrementally, otherwise FLG would need to resurrect long debunked accusations to suit their agenda.
Black market organ trading is real problem but also stop gap solution in China, a country with abysmally low organ donation rates that's improving since reforms. Reference per capita transplant rate, China is 1/4 of west, however large the market, it isn't enough to provide even parity availability, not to mention large numbers goes towards transplant tourism for western customers who never seem to get appropriate denouncement from FLG despite their massive discourse power. It takes two to tango.
At the end of the day, there are irreconcilable priorities and moral calculus due to differences in culture and development. CN transplant system is moving in the right direction - FLG didn't convince west to stop getting transplants in China, CCP had to legislate against when the time was right. Things improve incrementally, otherwise FLG would need to resurrect long debunked accusations to suit their agenda.
echelon(6)
So HN is now the hot bed for aspiring conspiracists? If applying Occam's Razor, maybe the most likely guess is ... he is not jailed?
One could also apply this the other way around – when the "disappearance" started getting news coverage, why not just pop up to say hi? Did he really miss all that news coverage about his own disappearance? Occam's razor might suggest there's a reason why he didn't.
My guess, applying this both ways, is that he's been ill or having some treatment or been in hospital, and that perhaps if it was bad, the calculation came out that disappearance rumours were better than "Jack Ma on his death bed" stories.
My guess, applying this both ways, is that he's been ill or having some treatment or been in hospital, and that perhaps if it was bad, the calculation came out that disappearance rumours were better than "Jack Ma on his death bed" stories.
[deleted]
Well, he can't complaint
I agree with dang's comment re nationalistic flamewar comments, but then I wonder why is this news article even allowed to appear on HN front page for so long and not being flagged by the admins? There is no substance in this news report which is interesting beyond the usual nationalistic flame wars and conspiracy theories or have I missed something?
If it wasn't for the 'nationalistic flamewar' comments this article would still be a classic HN link; news over a buisiness leader that started the biggest IPO and then regulatory influence came along. regardless of where you fall on the debate, I think we're all interested and are going to follow Jack Ma's next steps.
50 seconds of prerecorded speech. yeah, okay China. Sure.
Pro-CCP crew out in force tonight!
Comments like this break the site guidelines. Please don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is good https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25843617
thank you dang
Maybe Ma was just trying to stay out of the limelight[0] until the investigation of Ant Financial settled down a bit. He also owns SCMP[1], which has a mix of supportive and critical articles on the central government. Assuming he wanted to throw some pressure, in the mild form of (probably mostly disregarded) external censure back on the investigation, he may have been passive aggressively refusing to show his face. Perhaps to sow suspicion he'd been mysteriously detained in order to draw (Western) media scrutiny, and the "inevitable" torrent of China-critical speculation that invites. Of course, it could also be an Elon Musk-style stock manipulation play, but I think he's more motivated by the passions than pure financials.
Speculation is fun, but it's possible this is apophenia.
[0]no pun intended, he does like to dress up in camp drag and sing, if you don't believe, search for the videos, it's pretty funny for an (ex) CEO to do this
[1]this article doesn't have much more than the Reuters link, but does have a couple of videos https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3118454/alibaba-f...
thank you dang
Maybe Ma was just trying to stay out of the limelight[0] until the investigation of Ant Financial settled down a bit. He also owns SCMP[1], which has a mix of supportive and critical articles on the central government. Assuming he wanted to throw some pressure, in the mild form of (probably mostly disregarded) external censure back on the investigation, he may have been passive aggressively refusing to show his face. Perhaps to sow suspicion he'd been mysteriously detained in order to draw (Western) media scrutiny, and the "inevitable" torrent of China-critical speculation that invites. Of course, it could also be an Elon Musk-style stock manipulation play, but I think he's more motivated by the passions than pure financials.
Speculation is fun, but it's possible this is apophenia.
[0]no pun intended, he does like to dress up in camp drag and sing, if you don't believe, search for the videos, it's pretty funny for an (ex) CEO to do this
[1]this article doesn't have much more than the Reuters link, but does have a couple of videos https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3118454/alibaba-f...
FooBarWidget(12)
Was his face bruised?
I would love to see Facebook and Amazon researchers join forces and try to figure out whether this is a deepfake or not.
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/facebook-uses-...
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/facebook-uses-...
It doesn't have to be a deepfake. It isn't hard to compel someone in captivity to record a 50 second video.
At that point, why not get an actor and use a ton of make up to cover the imperfections?
During the video he keeps blinking 'e' in morse code. If real, he could be trying to communicate that he's hungry? 饿 :-)
> Alibaba’s Hong Kong-listed shares jumped to finish 8.5% higher on the news
Together with the geopolitics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the public disappearance [1] of Jack Ma may turn out to be a key turning point for the modern Chinese state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#Public_disappearance
Together with the geopolitics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the public disappearance [1] of Jack Ma may turn out to be a key turning point for the modern Chinese state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#Public_disappearance
I would not be impressed. After reading this, everything is possible:
https://www.odditycentral.com/news/chinas-rich-can-hire-body...
https://www.odditycentral.com/news/chinas-rich-can-hire-body...
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
There have been ugly mob behaviors on this site in the past, which have hounded people out of the community. Is that who you want to be? who we want to be? No it is not. Yet it happens all too easily, and the people doing it don't even realize that they're doing it—they just think they're righteously defending truth or freedom or the home team. If you don't want to be that way, then err on the side of respect, benefit of the doubt, and not jumping to predetermined conclusions. (If you do want to be that way, please find some other site to post to.)
We ban accounts that break these rules, so please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended. It has a very specific intended spirit and most of the people who've posted in this thread so far have been breaking it.