There was a post here that said that reddit was being valued at like $3 billion. Relative to that, 150 million is a tiny amount. Also, Tencent isn't equivalent to the Chinese government. Although the Chinese government certainly has more say in what it's companies can or cannot do, it's not right to say they're the same thing.
In this instance, Tencent and the government are functionally equivalent.
This is just sloppy thinking. You have to show evidence for your opinions. In this particular instance, do you have any specific evidence?
You think the CCP would be making investments into foreign social networks that they block? I It makes no sense. There's limited leverage over Reddit for the same reason. Anyone accessing them from China does it over VPN anyways.
No, that's why they are allowing Tencent to do it for them.
You think this deal doesn't have CCP approval? Tencent has an executive Party Committee who's explicit purpose is to make sure the company is advancing the Party's goals.
Of course the deal was approved in the boring sense. Neither that nor party membership mean that this is strategically interesting to the government.
The Chinese government forced a US company to publicly apologise when their website merely listed Hong Kong on the same level as China in a dropdown.
The government attempts to control the global narrative about China in any way they can. Of course they were involved with this.
I guess if they know their role and stick to manufacturing it's ok?
As far as Hong Kong.. they've got a pretty fair reason to be oversensitive about westerners implying it's not part of China.
And the Chinese government operates the largest and most effective censorship program in the history of humanity.
So maybe we don't want to sell them a stake in media and entertainment companies.
>As far as Hong Kong.. they've got a pretty fair reason to be oversensitive about westerners implying it's not part of China.
Maybe we should have let the people of Hong Kong vote on the issue.
Regardless, they did the exact same thing with Taiwan.
I mean, I get that you don't like them, but at a certain point it becomes willful ignorance.
And they have done everything in their power to make sure that the Hong Kong independence movement doesn't gain a foothold. From punishing protestors to eroding local autonomy, to encouraging mainland immigration, to manipulating global speech.
This isn't about some disadvantaged country being sensitive because they were taking advantage of by colonial powers a century ago.
This is about a modern colonial power asserting dominance over an oppressed people.
>I mean, I get that you don't like them
Yeah I don't "like" a government that puts millions of people in reeducation camps because of their religion. A government who most likely executes political prisoners to harvest their organs.
I don't like a government that insists that the populations of Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong have no right to self-determination.
If you don't dislike such a government, I'd suggest that you are the one being willfully ignorant.
Bias buster for you: what if you applied the same level of hostile rhetoric and numerical exaggeration to the deeds of the other 4 UNSC members over a given timeframe? Or, God forbid, applied dispassionate analysis to all 5?
Let me guess, that's whataboutism?
What was done to China in 1997? I'd say the people of Hong Kong have legitimate grievances against The British government from that year. Not offering them full citizenship for instance. They also have legitimate Grievances against China for not taking their opinions into account
>deeds of the other 4 UNSC members over a given timeframe?
So what? The US government has done bad things, and continues to do bad things. I'm not going to try to defend those actions. "Oh well we imprison too many black people, but China's bad too, so I guess that makes it OK." That's the equivalent argument.
At the same time it doesn't stop the Chinese government from being objectively horrible, (and objectively worse on most fronts), and it doesn't stop me from wanting to limit their influence over my country.
>Let me guess, that's whataboutism?
Yes, that's the definition of whataboutism. Hanging a lantern on it doesn't mean it's not true.
If you only apply extreme rhetoric and exaggeration towards one country, that's bias. At a certain point, all you're saying is that you really really don't like China. Whatever. They'll continue as they are and we'll continue being a house divided against itself that doesn't build anything.
Hopefully we don't start any "just" wars over it. America has a bad habit of doing that.
You did. I pointed out examples of bad things China is doing to explain why I don't want Chinese companies to partially own American media companies. You countered with: whatabout the bad stuff other countries have done.
If that wasn't a defense, then it was an irrelevant tangent that you had no reason to bring up. I don't go around to threads about the problems with US criminal justice system and start talking about Chinese organ harvesting.
Clearly you aren't here to argue in good faith.
It's a tautology. Anything Chinese companies/people do is evil, because China is evil, because everything they do is evil...
I was just trying to expand your mind a little bit with my suggestion of consistent standards. I guess you're happy where you are. Cheers.
>It's a tautology. Anything Chinese companies/people do is evil, because China is evil, because everything they do is evil...
I listed very specific, "evil" things that the Chinese government is doing. Yet you've decided to avoid those and instead address an imaginary argument that you invented out of whole cloth because it's easier for you to argue against. That's called a straw man.