This is perspective on at least one major reason companies like Facebook and Google were blocked in China.
If all Chinese people developed a habit of using Facebook it would essentially (in theory at least) allow the US government to spy on Chinese citizens.
NSLs can only be used to get non-content data, like whom an email was sent from and to. China intercepts and filters the actual content of all communication. https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/960948/what-happens-when...
> and has tried to force a US company (Apple) to create back doors to its encryption.
Apple had a "backdoor" to access data on its own phones via installing a build that disabled password attempt throttling. The FBI simply asked Apple to use its backdoor on the FBI's behalf, not to create a new backdoor that the FBI could use on its own. In China, Apple acceded to the government's demands to block any VPN service that prevents front door access by the government. https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/07/30/apple...
Source? My understanding is the exact opposite. Apple had not backdoor, but the FBI wanted it to create one like the one you described for it.
There's also the fact that the NSA has been archiving all data. Even if the law says the government can't do something with that data, or that NSLs can only be used to get non-content data, laws can change on a whim, while Facebook's dominance of a market cannot be easily removed. How effective do you think China suing the US for breaking or changing a law would be, if the whole point of the law is to leverage power against a nation? The possibility exists for potential antagonistic use if the data is stored in the US or owned by a US company, as everything in the US is under US jurisdiction.
If I have a gun pointed at your head and you tell me your current laws say that you will not use the gun against me if I give it to you, why would I believe you? Once I give you the gun, you have the power and will no longer need to follow your own laws.
> Apple had a "backdoor" to access data on its own phones via installing a build that disabled password attempt throttling. The FBI simply asked Apple to use its backdoor on the FBI's behalf, not to create a new backdoor that the FBI could use on its own. In China, Apple acceded to the government's demands to block any VPN service that prevents front door access by the government. https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/07/30/apple....
This is not true. Please provide a source (I was unable to locate one).
The NSA has done no such thing in the US. It has archived data in war zones according to leaks, but such areas have suspension of many human rights, to the point where this is a minor one.
> This is not true. Please provide a source (I was unable to locate one).
You included the link to my source in your quote.
There is zero correlation between security and being blocked in China. There is a strong correlation between competing with politically-connected Chinese entities and getting blocked / being forced to surrender key IP. The backdoor argument is a red herring.
Political destabilizing through the internet is a real thing and has been for many years and as more companies rely heavily on the internet for their business - stability of the internet infrastructure is very much tied to individual countries economic health and faith.
Does China go too far in regulating their internet? Most probably yes.
Is China's internet policy completely unreasonable on unfounded security grounds? Abso-fucking-lutely not.
The problem is no one really knows what the middle ground between the openness of the internet and policing it just the right amount. So we end up with an extreme case like China.
This argument would hold water if China's Internet policies were unique to telecom. They're not. The same instruments which protected Baidu and Tencent promote local steelmakers, phone makers, car manufacturers, battery and solar panel manufacturers and every other industry with a Princeling [1] attached.
> As much as its fashionable to hate on China and its government
Putting this at the end because it's a semantic comment. This is a silly way to attempt to dismiss a valid argument.
> it's a semantic comment.
Is this correct usage? I read that as "it's a meaningful comment" which seems opposite to the intended use.
For the most part the country is economically and socially stable and improving at rapid pace. Yes the country has its share of problems, but name me one country, democratic, developed or otherwise that doesnt have their share of problems.
The American/Western exceptionalism attitude towards other countries is kinda nauseatic.
China is not going around rigging pro-western government democratic countries election. Funding uprising and waging wars directly or directly (at least not at the scale USA is). Russia tried openning up their country and we know what happened to them, China may one day become more open but can't really blame them for being sceptical of the rest of the world.
So too is the "everyone's on aggregate just as bad as each other and everything is the same" equivocating approach to evaluating different countries and their systems.
>For the most part the country is economically and socially stable and improving at rapid pace. Yes the country has its share of problems, but name me one country, democratic, developed or otherwise that doesnt have their share of problems.
Nobody is saying Western countries are perfect. We just have the confidence in liberal democracy to at least say it is at least vastly superior to the dystopia China currently is. To say "China is improving at a rapid pace" is myopic. If you only care about economic development, then you are right, but if you care about civil liberties and human rights, then you could not be more wrong.
The difference between those and and the sites that are blocked (not just Facebook and Google, but also international newspapers) is that they cooperate with the Chinese government by censoring their websites, and the others do not.
Economically, Chinese social media isn't very relevant to the government. Since they are not exporting anything, protectionism in that sector doesn't really pay off. But being able to control what the populace can see and hear about the world is very important to them.
So the major reason for the internet blocks is security. It's the security of the state against its own citizens, but security nonetheless.
If all Chinese people developed a habit of using Facebook, perhaps they could openly criticize aspects of both the U.S. and Chinese governments, instead of just the former.
EDIT: I'm not surprised to see downvotes when the top-voted comment on this link (which is about a Chinese company getting into the U.S., and has nothing directly to do with Google or Facebook being blocked in China) is essentially, "And you are lynching Negroes" [0].
If anyone would care to disagree with words, I'd love to hear your reasoning or relevant experience.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Uh huh is the phrase.
China, like USA and every major country, wants total (and ideally exclusive) control. China can never have that so they banned FB and Google. Chinese versions popped up and they are not missing anything.
I use FB occasionally, and have zero Chinese friends, or Egyptian for that matter. A "FB" clone can do extremely well in just one country; those that have many friends and family in China can join FB clones from Canada, Germany or wherever they are from.
They're missing the censored content that the CCP wants to suppress.
That's a misleading metric, as I'd assume "most people" in any country mostly care about sharing lowbrow content on social media.
Also it's hard to consciously miss what you don't know exists. Apparently some of the sensitive topics in China have been so suppressed that many younger people aren't even aware of them and have few ways of finding out.
Anarchy is in Apple's DNA, and I have to believe there are still a few of the old guard hanging around that word would get out in such an event.