It is surprisingly that simple.
While the US and the western governments have their issues, they are still largely law abiding. China, however, is not. Additionally, under Xi, it has become more authoritarian and more willing to undo the rules based order that has someone kept the world somewhat sane since WWII.
I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this.
Edit: profile I am replying to has the following in their about section: "about: I play music and I code videogames. I live in Brighton, UK." so assuming the "hi from venezuela" was sarcastic.
Has there ever been a lasting trade embargo that was based solely on moral and ethical grounds?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#/media/File:CheinM...
More so: Russian Federation != Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Venezuela_relati...
What was once a beautiful nation is now rife with crime, even the military of all things is told not to have cell phones out by stop lights because somebody will swing on by on a motorcycle and hijack the phone. From the darn military! Still surprised they get away with it.
I also remember hearing from a relative that Chavez would basically bring Cuban doctors over from Cuba.
China has supported violent Juntas in Myanmar, and Sudan. It has essentially performed a coup in Hong Kong. And of course it loves supplying weapons to latin countries via Norinco. And it's doing economic damage and putting more of those countries in debt, just like it took Hambantota International Port from Sri Lanka.
Both are racking up kills elsewhere in Africa too.
Links please? Saying nothing / neutral Verbal approval Material support All these can be interpreted as supporting military Juntas.
And military Juntas are not necessarily bad. For example, SK was developed effectively through a Military Junta government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Republic_of_Korea
> It has essentially performed a coup in Hong Kong.
What is this? HK is part of China right?
> it loves supplying weapons to latin countries via Norinco.
Nothing special, China's aim is the largest weapon exporter.
> And it's doing economic damage and putting more of those countries in debt, just like it took Hambantota International Port from Sri Lanka.
This is shown to be a myth, as some other comments here suggested.
> Both are racking up kills elsewhere in Africa too.
What is this?
There have certainly been a bunch of opinion pieces expressing that opinion coming out at the same time. Which is incredibly weird, unless... oh right, opinions can be bought and China has a history of doing that.
Mystery solved I guess.
The case is that western media is so fixitated on negative coverage on China, so much so that any positive or neutral coverage will be seen as carefully manipulated campaign.
Every thread of China topic, here on HN, will see your type of comments consistently.
The real mystery is not that there is positive or neutral report on China.
The real mystery is why US people seem cannot use their brain on China topics...
Chinese media is state controlled, and no alternative is possible. If they wanted credible positive reporting, then they have only themselves to blame.
> There have certainly been a bunch of opinion pieces expressing that opinion coming out at the same time.
I was talking about English media. That's a reasonable assumption, since you are commenting on the HN comments, which is part of English media, and heavily influenced by mainstream English media, obviously.
You are an american or not is not relevant.
> If they wanted credible positive reporting, then they have only themselves to blame.
Wow.
Let's jail the SoB based on media reports. This is what you suggest, right?
"The only possible way to understand is by standing back in the stillness that lies underneath thinking and sees things as they really are. It's like watching hundreds of colors, each of them trying to persuade you it happens to be the most important one-then stepping back and seeing they all form a single rainbow. Thoughts in themselves are always leading to division and separation. But all thoughts, together, are a single whole." (from "Reality")
I'm not sure Imperial Japanese rule would be so much better, though.
Which is fairly tame in terms of securing geopolitical influence and enables more win-win arrangments. Especially with respect to Laos - a landlocked country with (to be blunt) zero long term development prospects. Laos per capital GDP growth has been on pace with booming Vietnam that has access to outsource manufacturing and maritime trade. Laos should be worse off than Cambodia that has 60% of current Laos per capita GDP. Even their largest export/growth sector - hydropower to Thailand is enabled by PRC (not to sound patronizing). PRC infra projects setup Laos to be the battery of region + rail connectivity for other exports = only real viable of short/medium term growth strategy for a undeveloped landlocked country with poor human development. Go look up gdp per capita trends of ASEAN since 2000 when PRC growth started blowing up, also LATM during same period. You'll be hard pressed to find any country whose per capita GDP increased by 8x like Laos. Many are luck with half that. As for societal changes on border regions that benefits from flow of migrant and economic development, that's what happens when countries get richer - things change. If you think that's a bad deal then I'm curious if you can find a better one, especially for a land locked country with no maritime access.
It is easy to look everything through the lens of GDP but it is a poor measure of healthiness of a society from sociological perspective.
> Just repeating "landlocked country" twenty times doesn't paint the clearest picture. ... >untapped mineral resource
Being landlocked is one of the major development traps, it's highly relevant. And the point is Laos is landlocked AND underdevelopped in both infra and human capita. They're not going to be Switzerland without generations of development, if ever. All those untapped resources can't be economically exported relative to sea trade... incidentally why PRC rail development in Laos also game changer. Improves economics of rare metals (gold, Laos other huge export) but less for bulk cargo like agriculture. Laos has zero prospect for being an ag-commodity export power. The most profitable specialty ag trade had export potential of something like 600M. There's simply a ceiling on how much ag can uplift, it's why largest growth sector in last 20 years is industry, which requires capital investments, for a poor country like Laos, it means FDI and period of upheaval caused by new wealth and modes of exploitation.
> never knew how to handle that
Yeah that's what happens to nouvel rich everywhere. That's a sign of development. Laos is not usefully connected to English sphere via geography... again they're landlocked and only large economic connector is PRC. If people want to make money therer it's only prudent to learn Chinese and which will increase integration, especially in border regions. Why would Laos look to rest of world when the fastest growing region is Asia? Learning English is one way street to being brain drained and losing your best.
> GDP but it is a poor measure of healthiness of a society
This is true, ergo why Xi prioritized correcting the excesses of Deng's unbalanced growth that had caused huge problematic culture shifts. Every country that's gone through rapid growth will need manage that transition. Per capita GDP is strongly correlated to Human Development Index for a reason, you need money to make a healthy, educated, productive society. At end of day Laos/PRC relationship enables Laos to have more omney than her geography would otherwise enable. It's not upper income but it's a path out of subsistence if managed properly by Vientiane, which they may absolutely fail at.
Wait, I don't even need to talk in conditionals. I Googled it and apparently it has indeed been done several times, and the results are what I expected.
https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-demo...
By the way, those are countries near another warmonging superpower... What if you poll South America?
20 Years!
Edit: Downvotes, whats the best way to deal with colossal failure... pretend like it never happened. Afghanistan, huh? what are you talking about.
CIA helped in getting Lumumba and wanted to put a halt to his movement. They along with Belgian officers even tried killing him by poisoning his toothpaste.
CIA overthrew Mosaddegh in Iran which lead to where they are today in terms of an oppresive theocratic government.
And US military and CIA are acting as world police in Somalia.
The point is obvious to anyone even tangentially following the israel-palestine conflict: Israel is a close ally to the us and heavily supported by them in their brutal occupation of Palestine.
Yes sir! Will do sir! Thank you for improving the quality of discourse sir!! Where would we be without your guidance sir!
These are the results of people that have lived under a unipolar world and have forgotten the horrors of pre pax americana.
If anything, my point was the same but for people in Asia in regards to China/Russia.
Do you think that the answer to this question will be the same post Covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
And, in the same light, China’s increasingly threatening rhetoric against Taiwan?
THAT, and the fact that this conflict is being exported to other democratic countries is a threat to democracy, although not so much to World Peace.
2013 was before Russia's first hostilities against Ukraine and also before China started to flex their military muscles. Also, at that time, the Obama administration was involved in several wars as well as the use of drone warfare against their enemies elsewhere. I don't find it surprising that many would feel that the US was the greater threat at that time, even though the threat level overall was much lower at the time.
Trust me, Russia and especially China is a much bigger threat to democracy nowadays
And that's not a Godwin because the CCP's rhetoric these recent years is extremely racist and aggressive. They are feeding their population with a warped view of non-Han, non-Chinese people.
Not abiding to whose law? Those international laws that even the US and its allies would not respect when it's not convinient to their agenda and narrative.
This has led to the destruction of Irak, Libya, the killing of Lumumba, and scores of other exemples across all continents.
The western world has been responsible for destructions and destabilisations all in the name of ensuring the economical and political future of their countries.
The West would happily support and never critise authoritarian regimes such as Rwanda just because it's convinient to them, and in the same sentence accuse China and Russia. I've never seen calls for democracy in place of the Kagame's regime for example.
You are failing to see the forrest for the trees, and at the same time overlooking so many details just to prove a point.
Perhaps on an internal level. But for those of us in third countries what matters is how they act outside their borders, and the US is doing considerably more dronestriking of their political enemies than China is.
(And even if you just look at domestic aspects, the relevant area is one of the exceptions. The NSA seems to be decoupled from any oversight - its leaders lie to congress with impunity, any attempts to hold them to account via the courts are dismissed...)
Who's acting outside of their borders again?
Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
It's generally both - they're getting both American and foreign taxpayers to pay for their stuff.
> And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
If you're only looking at the direct impact of the base, sure, it tends to mean there are a bunch of young American men with money to burn around (though they also tend to be a not entirely positive influence in terms of e.g. sexual assaults). But the full package of obligations that goes with it tends to add up to something that's costly for both sides, and the people with the supply contracts are the only real winners.
The american taxpayer only benefits insofar as they are goven crumbs so they do not revolt or use what little democratic control they have to reign in the beast.
From the point of view of the rest of the world, there is nothing really to distinguish the US from the CCP other than the CCP are slightly more forward thinking in some of their projects in terms of long term benefit to themselves and are (momentarily) more brutally authoritarian. On the US side the main downsides aee they're currently dominant and there is a real danger of the US being taken over by a literal apocalypse cult that seeks climate change as an end to seek rather than merely something to be ignored where possible as the current incumbents do.
Other than that, one imperialist is the same as another -- to some degree even for the other countries in the imperial core.
The USA extracts more benefit from having a base in Australia than they pay for it.
Furthermore, the US is waging economic war on half the world since I have memory of it, isn't it time the rest of the world starts to protect themselves?
That doesn't make it right. Ukrainians are scared right now, that's not the right mental state to take decisions that will trap you for decades or more into a state of subjection to the US.
Also I don't care wether they want or not, the US must not expand further or we're basically asking for them to rule the world even more then they're currently doing. Plus I know by experience Ukraine will be better off without US bases.
My country has several US bases and this makes us a target for any US enemy and at the same time makes us a puppet state, lacking any sovereignty especially when it comes to foreign politics. Ask most people in my country, they'll tell you the bases can burn to hell.
Those bases are not there to defend us, their role is that of an offensive platform. We have many nuclear weapons ready to launch in case Biden decides it's time to fuck up some population.
I feel my safety and wellbeing are actively compromised by having foreign military bases on our soil.
Plus the American soldiers hosted in our country committed violence and rape several times and this is all documented and confirmed by our courts. Those yankees can definitely and quickly go home.
I am from Eastern Europe and closer ties with US, although have a price, are the preferred option.
Soldiers should be judged accordingly, but it’s an incident and not US supported norm.
I think you don’t get sentiment from this part of the world.
I think the reason the US gets a pass in the international political zeitgeist is that it's motives serve a greater peace. In the past imperial powers have largely used their militaries to enrich their own mercantilist motives; the us has been the opposite, it has used trade and greed to bolster a security stance that has been positive for a lot of people (if you look at trade figures the beneficiaries of us-led trade globalization has mostly been other countries, ironically, mostly china, < 10% of us GDP is foreign trade).
Not to diminish the suffering of Latin American nations under us meddling, the pax Americana has directly brought peace to Europe which has basically been infighting since the beginning of time -- that's 450 million people that are not at each other's throats. Is that worth a Pinochet or two (Allende was no saint either), and bombing a few thousand innocent pashtuns, destabilizing iraq? I can't say, but at least I understand why people give the US a pass.
lol, PLEASE
The US Has Been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776
You may want to consult the so called 'global south' on that question who represents the majority of people on the planet and seems to have quite a different impression. Undoing America's 'rule based order' isn't a geopolitical threat to the world, it's a geopolitical threat to the US. Why would billions of people on earth be afraid of living in a world where their countries have actual influence? You may want to get used to the fact that you're not going to get to define what's 'sane' for everyone for much longer.
And I am from the global south, I don’t know anyone that thinks the US is a threat
China and Russia on the other hand, yes, very much
The many shameful aspects of US foreign policy absolutely should be brought to light, but that doesn't mean retreating to defeatist nihilism. There can be something new under the sun, and US occupations of the past 40 years have been markedly different from previous empires. It's not enough progress as a society, but it is progress.
Edit: to be clear, I don't condone China's actions. I see both the US and China as very bad actors on the world stage.
> I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this.
Probably because it's not that they are afraid, they simply don't agree. For many people around the world, the US and Europe have inflicted far greater problems over the past 0-100 years.
If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia. At least in a democracy, there's ways to change the public opinion.
Yeah, who cares about the bad stuff 3-5-10-20 years in the past! All those US wars and coups are not applicable since the USA has turned into a bright, shiny fairy now!
"If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia."
Yeah, the US holding a gun to your head and saying: You are either with us or against us. Many nations want to make their own independent sovereign choice. Your diplomats actually use this language when they feel they can push folks around.
Russia: uses their natural resources as weapons, invaded Ukraine, supports dictatorship in Syria
China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years
This is just the recent stuff, China has invaded Vietnam and fought against UN coalition that was protecting South Korea against North Korea aggression
Russia has done so much ** i am going to take too long to write
And these are only what affect other countries, they have done horrible things to their domestic population as well…
Ukraine views Donetsk/Luhansk People Republics exactly the same.
Why is Ukraine right and China not?
Eventually, beaten by Mao, Chiang Kai Shek and its army invaded Taiwan and claimed it theirs. The CCP never ruled the island of Taiwan.
Your analogy is wrong and there's no really other country with a similar history in the world. The CCP loves making claims based on dubious (i.e false) historical basis.
Edit:
> barely 2 centuries 400 years ago
Wiki says it was 1683–1895, so 2 centuries but just 130 years ago. It was then ceded to Japan after China defeat in a war, so it had to be Chinese before that (otherwise, how could China cede it?).
Edit:
> [Wiki says:] In September 1945 following Japan's surrender in WWII, ROC forces, assisted by small American teams, prepared an amphibious lift into Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese military forces there
In 1945 the Chinese civil war was still ongoing, but WW2 has already finished, Japan lost, and ~300k Japanese residents of Taiwan were expelled from the island. There was no fighting during the takeover, so I don't think it can be called an invasion.
There are important differences between that situation and Ukraine, but... I don't believe they are enough to invalidate the whole analogy. My understanding is that both PRC and ROC see themselves as continuation of imperial China, which means both have equal claim to Taiwan (and mainland). Taiwan was colonized by Japan for some 50 years, but I don't think that's enough to claim it's inherently Japanese (especially after the deportation of Japanese citizens). If not, then it has to be Chinese.
So: there was a civil war in China, then because of unrelated happenings a part of China that was occupied by Japanese became Chinese again, and then an external power chose one of the warring sides in the civil war and unilaterally gave a part of Chinese territory to that side. Is this about right?
If so - I see enough parallels to current Ukraine situation to say that I don't believe my analogy breaks down, as you said. Following 2014, there was a civil war in Ukraine (honestly, saying it was a "special anti-terrorist action" is as valid as calling Russian invasion "special military operation"). The insurgents did not get a newly reclaimed land to retreat to, so they stayed where they were. Then an external power chose one side of the civil war, and propped it up so that they won't fail. There was next to no fighting during proclamation of secession. A few years later, separatists backed by the external power were recognized unilaterally by that power as independent entities. It was even similar timeline: ROC went to Taiwan in 1945, but the island was officially recognized as not-Japanese in 1952. That's 7 years; in Ukraine it was 8 years (2014-2022).
The more successful/bigger side of the civil war in both case never considered the other side anything other than rebels and terrorists. The less successful sides claim to be freedom-fighters trying to exercise their right to self determination.
The only real difference is that the powers backing ROC didn't, for one reason or other, try to help them retake more of the territory of the more successful side - but they were arming that side for 70 years now.
I really don't think the differences make the two situations incomparable.
My point is not that Taiwan never was under Chinese rule, but a) it never was really integrated to China like most current chinese provinces (China boasts about a 5000 year long history, loosely controlling (5% of) an island for 200 years before losing it at the very end of the their these 5000 years is not a very strong claim), b) never controlled the entirety of the island because Chinese settlers stayed on the coast, the rest of the island was under aboriginal control (which were not a uniform block) c) never cared about it (it was under the rule of a former pirate turned governor - look up Koxinga) and never did anything with it.
Chiang's army retreated to Taiwan but it's a matter of semantic. It was under Japanese occupation until the end of WW2. Chiang raised the question of Taiwan to the Americans who at that time couldn't care less about that tiny island because they had so much on their plate. The Americans were like "sure, whatever, go for it", but nothing was officially signed (iirc) and Chiang and his army invaded the island and went on to subject it to an horrible authoritarian rule for the next decades.
Final words, about the R.O.C claiming China. That's a sad legacy of Chiang's lunacy. And now the CCP says that if the R.O.C dares to say that they're independant (which they are, but can't say it) they will invade. So Taiwan is stuck with this nonsense because of the threats coming from the Chinese government. Also Chiang had a chance to have a seat the UN but refused because he wanted to be the only China. The rest is history.
Most of what I wrote above comes from the book "Forbidden nation" by Jonathan Manthorpe (and other books but that one covers the history of Taiwan since the very beginning.)
Edit: I posted that before you edit (which I haven't read yet).
Edit 2: I'm not arguing against the parallel with Ukraine which I know nothing about. Just against the analogy with a hypothetical US state leaving the union.
Ah, ok. Yeah, I know basically nothing about the US and that analogy was indeed not a great one. I was thinking about Ukraine more, as it's both close by (to me) and happening right now.
In any case, thanks, I learned a bit more about the Taiwan history and will spend some more time reading about it, as it seems quite interesting :)
Far better that compared to Obama's "moderate", rapist rebels who evolved into ISIS. All the scenes of jubilation and crying when women were unchained from basements in Aleppo never made it to the US media and were taken down in 15/20 mins on youtube. The mind-boggling thing is that Aleppo was liberated from Al-Nusra by the Syrian Army - the US were providing weapons to folks on their own terrorist list!
"China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years"
Regarding China and Taiwan, the amount of American ignorance here truly astonishes me. When the United States moved to recognise the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognise the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.”
The recent statements by the US president seem to reverse that acknowledgement severely enflaming tensions. Washington is playing with true fire here - China has no interest in invading Taiwan as long as they can moderate Taiwanese policy and as long as Beijing is recognised as the real Chinese government. But Biden is regularly being used as a play-the-dotard puppet by the War-Hawks to inflame tensions, with a nod-and-a-wink later: oh my dear, he didn't really mean it. Until the next inflaming statement comes out of his mouth.
If the US attempts to worsen the state of affairs and keep escalating tensions with statements of support for Taiwanese independence, then YES, there will indeed be an invasion. It will be utterly brutal and Taiwan will be annexed in the end - unless the US is willing to suffer heavy casualties in the hundreds of thousands and transition to a war-economy (which they will not as that would make the donors un-happy. They need to be paid more not less for arms)
Tens of thousands of Taiwanese lives will be lost to American egos and the American military industry who are always looking for the next war to keep their billionaire shareholders fat and happy. More Transfer of Wealth from the American taxpayer to the American elite.
But it has happened
China tried with Vietnam but failed
Russia tried with Afghanistan but failed
France under Napoleon could do a lot of stuff in continental Europe
And the list goes on
Rules were made to be broken!
For many parts of the world, the USA is the biggest threat and tyrant in the world causing significant pain, loss and helplessness for hundreds of millions. Usually followed by deep hatred. I know folks who have lost their entire family to the USA. Unlike Ukraine, US acts of civilian violence rarely make the news or if they do, they are glossed over.
If you bring together three people from USA, Russia, China then none of them will have trouble naming the two biggest threats. None of them will agree, but they’ll all name 2 of the same 3 anyone from anywhere in the rest of the world would name.
Only an American/NATO nation citizen can believe this utter nonsense. The only rules being followed were the ones the USA laid out with its military fist, crushing of the opposition and sponsored coups - all in their favour.
Now that they finally have a serious competitor, the US is getting antsy. I am frankly speaking utterly glad for China's ascent. It will keep the USA in check (somewhat).
First thing in agenda: invade Taiwan and cause a chip shortage in the world that will cause the greatest economic crisis you will ever see!
More people are dying in Yemen every-day thanks to US embargoes and US weapons than in Ukraine, but not a whiff about it in Western news. No photos of Yemeni mothers holding dead children. No photos of limbs being blasted off by US supplied bombs. Americans who support their military and state are ignorant, sanctimonious hypocrites of the highest order.
Though the Chinese are everyday provoking Taiwan like crazy nowadays and does a hell lot of economic coercion to other countries
They also had some recent borders disputes with India which did end up with deaths
I'm sure that Hong Kongers see it that way ahahaha.
They then suppressed any autonomy in Hong Kong for decades, installing a ruthless puppet government.
Oh really? The two systems where a CCP chill was placed at the top of the power and where protests were violently repressed?
Talk about being "freed" of colonial rule.
Without the will of Hong Kong citizens. That's the reverse of freedom.
> Hong Kong still has a democracy
It's not. The CCP simply dictates what happens in Hong Kong.
> Not hard to grasp.
Hong Kong being under the dictatorial boot of China is indeed not very difficult to grasp.
Without fair elections? I don't think so.
> It is the will of Hong Kong citizens to be free from British imperialism.
As decided where?
Show me the referendum voting results then?
So it isn't a democracy.
We dont all want to live in a theocratic bi-party corporatist paradise, crushed by personal loans to cure grandma s broken leg, to exgaerate a bit. I live in China and while I dislike the communists just as much as the next guy, I'm quite unsure what's so good about the US.
It's just as much a giant country blabbering all day long about how we should be their protectorate (I'm French), a lot like China...
But yeah let s not be afraid to say China, Xi in particular, are in an endless dictator trap, covering the crimes of the past with the crimes of the present. I just wouldnt put all my bets on the US evolving better just because God wrote their constitution or whatever else they think make them so virtuous.
This is absolutely untrue. The CIA operates in clear violation of both US and foreign law and flaunts it, and they suffer no consequences whatsoever.
The US is corrupt at the highest levels, with entire governmental organizations totally exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.
China isn't going to shoot my dog at 4am and throw me in a concrete box.
And if I were a Chinese or Russian citizen, I'd be far more wary of domestic apps than US apps for precisely the same reason. Not playing favorites here, it's just a jurisdictional arbitrage question in a world dominated by tyranny.
It's all perspective, China and Russia say the exact same thing about the US.
Can't believe people still fail for that kind of propaganda...
Why are we letting FB off the hook? Why are we letting any of the platforms that harvest data off the hook? FB tweaked their algos to literally see if they could fuck with people's moods. They know the power they hold, and they constantly refine it to keep people's attention. At some point if FB promoted via algo something that riles up a group of people against another group of people to the point of violence, how is that any less bad? Especially, since that's what has happened?
Essentially threats to folks up north. Down here (in Latin America) and other places such as the entirely of Asian and African countries, US has been a threat since it exists.
US is still moving it's pieces here in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador. Not to mention espionage on half of the world (thanks WikiLeaks)
The U.S and China are entangled in ways you cant imagine.
Clearly, they think that these are important sovereignty issues such that they’ve clamped down or disallowed these services entirely.
The ability to manipulate people via state sponsored algorithmic tweaks to TikTok’s ranking algorithm is a powerful tool.
You don’t need to do much to sour US’s support for Taiwan in the eyes of just a minority. Or you don’t need to do much to tweak the algorithm such that content about politicians friendly to China is ranked higher than others.
And people wonder why we’re so divided
Where does one even begin...
For free of being called xenophobic and racist.