No. The U.S. 300 million citizen don’t have the monopoly on morals when 1 billion Indians have a different idea about them. So don’t be pretentious, adapt to local laws and let people figure out their own ideas about life. Maybe, just maybe, the U.S. has the wrong laws.
1 billion Indians aren't all supporters of government censorship of criticism.
If the US government enacted some ridiculous law, you would hope that US corporations would try to push back a bit, at least rhetorically, because you recognize that the state isn't its people. Why suddenly the different tone for India?
Plenty of countries in the world have a lax view on nudity, show it on TV, go to the beach naked, have a regulated sex work industry etc.
Yet, since almost all large platforms and payment processors are American, good luck posting photos of sand dunes because some algorithm at Facebook might confuse it with woman's breasts, and I don't see anyone pushing back.
Point being adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say in what's allowed in some country none of them stepped foot in.
> adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say
I think we might both agree there's a line beyond which even you would abandon this view.
We may just disagree on where that line should exist.
If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? Probably not, right?
> Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon.
Can we please stop pretending that Christianity is worse than other religions?
As already mentioned by another numerous well known examples of other groups of people exist who punish homosexuality by death today (leaving out names as I'm not trying to not continue a flame war here, I'm not out to criticize any other religion or culture here). On the other hand I'm not aware of any current Christian groups who kill or beat anyone for that.
> Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them.
You know what else the English brought?
They brought an end to burning young widows in their "husbands" funerals.
History isn't black and white and while I know it is extremely trendy to blame white Christian guys for everything we should strive for a better standard here.
What Christian theocracy will put you to death, today, for being homosexual? Numerous Islamic government examples exist, yes. I’m looking for Christian, since that’s where you say the focus must be.
It's just a hypothetical that I put out there for rhetorical purposes. It doesn't have to be realistic. You can substitute India for another country (say, Saudi Arabia, like another poster did) if you think that realism is important. The argument will remain the same.
I see rights being of intrinsic value how much a country, both its culture and regulators, protect them can be directly scored. you can argue what exactly those rights should be, and you can argue that a society can still be happy and productive without those rights, but you cannot argue that people have their rights when the gov't and their proxies in the business world suppresses them.
all that being said, I suspect there is less policing of speech on twitter in India then what twitter does to discourse in the states.
We are talking about freedom of speech here, not food regulations. Once it goes away, it doesn't come back. Where is the line between "culture war" and "moral imperative"? How far does moral relativism go? A country is gradually turning fascist - will you continue your hands-off policy even as they commit genocide? (A million Uighurs say yes unfortunately).
Countries aren't wild animals, to be observed Attenborough-like but not interfered with. They're people. If free speech is good enough for me then it's damn well good enough for them.
If they're forbidden from talking, how would we even know?
Indians aren't an alien hive-mind, they're regular people like you and me, and until someone proves otherwise I'm going to assume they don't like being oppressed.
Reality check - Twitter is censoring tweets critical of the government, at government request. Am I really supposed to believe that this government represents the people? Because it sounds less like "cultural differences" and more like bog standard authoritarianism.
Twin sisters? Call them game developers or entrepreneurs and if you want to highlight their sex just write out female in front but don’t degrade them them to being twin sisters.
In all your examples (and the examples the person replying to you has made) the descriptions don't lose the persons identity.
People refer to the "Winklevoss brothers" they don't appear in headlines as "Twin brothers...". They're refered to by their name, as well as the fact they're brothers - it's easier to refer to the fact that they're both Winklevoss and just say Winklevoss brothers. Whereas in this headline, the sisters' identities are erased- they only exist as twin sisters with no identity.
In all these examples - Winklevoss twins, Collison brothers, Wright Brothers, Property Brothers, Marx Brothers, Brothers Grimm, Russo Brothers... they all actually name the brothers.
The title of this article is really weird - it anonymises the businesswomen and attributes their wealth to the work of other people. I don't object to it strongly, but I do think it's a kind of backwards way of writing the title. This title could be perfectly applied to some charity kickstarter run by female gamers for some twins that are in need.
These are already famous people. As a rule, journalists don't mention names in the headline that would likely be unknown to the audience. Of course, this creates a chicken and egg problem sometimes...
It was. But Germany cooperated with the NSA on mass surveillance so that’s okay. The anti Huawei narrative is entirely political and not based on facts.
I believe one of the major reasons why Huawei is so vilified is that it's the first Chinese corporation that not only outprices its Western competitors, but also outtechs and outmanages them. This goes so counter to the Gated Institutional Narrative that cognitive dissonance kicks in - media insist there must surely be something dishonest and fraudulent about Huawei.
Both Ericsson and Nokia barely make any profit, even amidst of what should be a 5G bonanza. They're famous for their perennial layoffs, constant cost-cutting, bland working conditions, outsourcing, infighting, insane level of bureaucracy and proliferation of management positions.
Huawei on the other hand, is well known for paying above-market wages (though long working hours), "poaching" skilled people from competitors, generous employee share scheme, valuing engineering above middle management, contributing to open source projects, and relative freedom their R&D personnel enjoys in tackling technical challenges. And their B2B offerings are the best value. And their consumer electronics is among the best value. And on top of that, they're highly profitable.
Even if you assert there's some secret money pump from CCP to Huawei, you cannot deny the fact that Huawei is a well-oiled machine that delivers. Pump billions into not only Nokia/Ericsson, but also IBM, SAP, HP, Oracle - the money would just get sucked into a black hole with very little to show for it. Huawei is portrayed as evil, because the alternative is to confront our weakness.
> Huawei is portrayed as evil, because the alternative is to confront our weakness.
While this may be the case with some people with loose morals, don't put your words in my finger tips. I portray all major Chinese corps as the worst possible alternative in most cases because they are backed by a government with modern day concentration camps
I hang in the EU a lot lately. My friend takes corporate groups on tours of various places. She told me of one group from China last year who happened to see European reporting on protests in HK, while they were at a bar. The group's reaction was "what is this a joke? Are they being sarcastic? Is this a movie?" They had no idea what was happening in HK. A couple of them sent messages home to friends/family about the matter and within minutes all of their phones were disabled.
This actually happened. I want that government as far from me as possible.
The HK protests were well covered in mainstream Chinese news. Was this tour from a part of China without TVs?
There was wide National Support for the crackdown on HK protests, it wasn't controversial at all. The government didn't need to censor any of the media.
> I portray all major Chinese corps as the worst possible alternative in most cases because they are backed by a government with modern day concentration camps
So half of Europe and South America have modern day concentration camps, they just call them "Refugee Camps". In other Asia Pacific Countries (including Australia) they have "Immigration Detention Centres" (prisons for the persecuted). In the US they have Gitmo AND immigration detention.
In China they have Work Camps and Re-eduction camps.
I fail to see the moral high ground. Are you from a part of the world I missed?
> In China they have Work Camps and Re-eduction camps.
OK, I give up being reasonable. Collect your 50 cents.
> I fail to see the moral high ground. Are you from a part of the world I missed?
I am not claiming any moral high ground. In fact, my experience tells me that anyone claiming the moral high ground for one country/race/group over another takes the risk of being a dangerous fool. This side of humanity will be our end if we do not grow out of it very soon.
Huawei is a legitimate threat from a country that doesn't have the same checks and balances as other countries e.g. free media, robust judiciary, democracy.
And it's not like network providers are specifically trying to secure their platform against Huawei. It's against anyone.
The internal structure of a country is not a good predictor of its foreign policy. How countries act foreign policy wise is very simple - they will attempt to achieve the most advantageous positions for themselves, without regard for you (unless you can help them, of course).
It doesn't matter if you're dealing with a dictatorship or a democracy when it comes to foreign policy. Both will kill you.
> Using "CCP" in place of "China" is a trend that started with the recent demonization of China.
I take exception to this as I have been trying to explain to everyone how evil the CCP is for many years. It is not recent. Using the term CCP is simply an attempt to accurately identify the problem, and not be lazy/racist by blaming things on "China."
The lowest common denominator for systems which I find "evil" are systems with low accountability.
Non-democratic authoritarian regimes, populations with large income divides, US policing systems, economies with monopolistic actors... all of these things are systems with low-to-zero accountability.
Or if you are truly asking the innocent question "how are they evil?" Examples of how the CCP is evil can be found in HK jails, Tianamen square, and Xinjiang province for a start.
"Evil" is just lazy shorthand. Unfair, unjust, not cool... many words could work here.
Also, just because I am currently talking about the evils of the CCP does not spare other actors and systems from my derision.
People seem to be easily led down the path of A vs B when the truth is always more complex. For example, the antique dichotomy of Capitalism vs Socialism is somehow still the main discussion. From my POV, history has clearly proven both doctrines as faulty in their pure forms. For years we have seen and lived the "third way" but somehow, it's still Capitalism vs Socialism in the conversation.
The reaction to COVID clearly shows how plain dumb US capitalism really is. That doesn't excuse the CCP from anything.
> So all countries are unfair/unjust and no ones excused but let’s keep talking about Chinas bad...
In comment threads about China, yes. But also, you keep twisting my words. I never said China bad, I said CCP truly evil.
> I hope somewhere on the Chinese version of HN...
This is either disingenuous or very naïve. Please send me a link to a Chinese platform for open discourse where their own government can be criticized, like I criticize the US government in this thread, and I will donate $500 to the charity of your choice.
You don’t think Chinese have technical forums online? Save your $500. They do. You’re right they won’t criticise government so openly, but they will criticise the US (which is what I was saying) and they do criticise their own government but it’s usually through innuendo and pun rather than direct criticism. Where do you think Winnie the Pooh memes came from?
This thread is about Huawei a Chinese company. Not the CCP... am I the one twisting words? Or does everything Chinese immediately get grouped up to CCP and hated on?
I know an informed opinion of China when I see people make a distinction between Xi, CCP, and Chinese companies... they are not the same thing at all.
> Also, Hua wei isn’t the ccp. I’m sure there is influence for sure
Actually, the CCP controls all companies in China, and has agents on site in each company over about 40 employees. The founder is PLA, which reports to the CCP.
Wow... Where do people make this stuff up? This is like CCP fan fiction.
Larger companies often have to have a ccp representative, these aren’t agents... Founders are not PLA... you mean Huawei in particular... the founder was once in the army?
Similar to how Amazon, Boeing, and AT&T are dual use?
Or how Johnson and Johnson’s CEO is Ex military? Guess you should think twice about that shampoo.
And that CCP cell controls the direction of the company? Or less dramatically does it ensure (a) workers rights (admittedly these are far worse conditions than western countries), and (b) that the company isn’t working against the CCP.
No, they blame "Israel", which is a political and national entity. You can be more specific and blame one leader or party when that is a variable, but that's not the case with China- the CCP is in fact its fundamental political organisation.
So the only reason to talk of "the CCP" instead of "China" is that it reframes an issue which is mostly a struggle for economic and military power between countries, to an issue within China itself, between the Chinese people and their government. Which is dishonest, because truth is, from one side the Chinese don't have much issues with their government, it's working great for them; and from the other side, the US would have issue with any government of China, as long as it keeps steadily advancing to become the first economic power in the world. But of course admitting that is not easy, so it's better to pretend the issue is "the CCP".
