Thread

@npub1c29f...dt7g @npub1wgjt...q3yl I just want to comment: the "GFC" is principally not a censorship nor surveillance mechanism. There is fundamentally no difference between the Chinese internet vs. Western internet insofar as censorship + surveillance + repression. Countries like Canada, Germany, and the UK regularly charge and prosecute individuals over what is essentially "wrong think" crimes and this is accepted and supported by the liberal establishment. The USA maintains the most pervasive and matured surveillance apparatuses on the planet, a fact that's also simply "accepted". Yet, anytime any of these mechanisms or happenings are conducted by non-Western-aligned entities e.g. China or Russia they are marketed as draconian and oppressive. ---As with everything: "it's only okay when we do it!" The GFC exists first and foremost as an economic protectionist measure (which, arguably, has already served its purpose). This was made very clear from the start. In early days of Chinese internet and computing there was virtually zero domestic solutions ready to serve users or begin populating the market. This meant that for Western companies and IT giants it was metaphorically wide open hunting grounds with zero competition. The CCP had already seen other countries' markets and IT sectors become entirely monopolized and dependent by already-developed foreign giants like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc.. We see this still today: in many parts of the world, where their entire digital and online infrastructure is provided by Western corporations. The GFC was meant to thwart this and provide domestic Chinese alternatives a strong home-field advantage. The GFC is primarily why Chinese companies like Tencent, Baidu, QQ, TaoBao, etc. even exist. To a lesser degree, it also provided advantages to Chinese hardware manufacturers like Huawei and Xiaomi. I cannot stand listening to people make arguments against the GFC along "muh censorship muh surveillance" when those arguments are patently disingenuous: the West conducts these actions unopposed by Chinese critics, ergo the criticism cannot genuinely be against censorship or surveillance. And, from the beginning, Chinese leadership has argued for the GFC from a protectionist policy---which, clearly, has worked! Nobody wants to recognize or accept this, however, and still reverts to parroting commentary about how China censors their internet and represses their citizenry. It's all knowingly dishonest, disingenuous, slimy criticism and rhetoric, purely propaganda in nature.

Replies (1)

Communists will excuse the repressions of their Red Lords with walls of apologetic text and DARVO. Zero historical lessons learned. Zero balance of facts, zero nuance. We good, you bad. Zero empthy for the victims of repression. Just one-eyed ideology.
👺 奇诺［流浪者］👹's avatar 👺 奇诺［流浪者］👹
@npub1c29f...dt7g @npub1wgjt...q3yl I just want to comment: the "GFC" is principally not a censorship nor surveillance mechanism. There is fundamentally no difference between the Chinese internet vs. Western internet insofar as censorship + surveillance + repression. Countries like Canada, Germany, and the UK regularly charge and prosecute individuals over what is essentially "wrong think" crimes and this is accepted and supported by the liberal establishment. The USA maintains the most pervasive and matured surveillance apparatuses on the planet, a fact that's also simply "accepted". Yet, anytime any of these mechanisms or happenings are conducted by non-Western-aligned entities e.g. China or Russia they are marketed as draconian and oppressive. ---As with everything: "it's only okay when we do it!" The GFC exists first and foremost as an economic protectionist measure (which, arguably, has already served its purpose). This was made very clear from the start. In early days of Chinese internet and computing there was virtually zero domestic solutions ready to serve users or begin populating the market. This meant that for Western companies and IT giants it was metaphorically wide open hunting grounds with zero competition. The CCP had already seen other countries' markets and IT sectors become entirely monopolized and dependent by already-developed foreign giants like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc.. We see this still today: in many parts of the world, where their entire digital and online infrastructure is provided by Western corporations. The GFC was meant to thwart this and provide domestic Chinese alternatives a strong home-field advantage. The GFC is primarily why Chinese companies like Tencent, Baidu, QQ, TaoBao, etc. even exist. To a lesser degree, it also provided advantages to Chinese hardware manufacturers like Huawei and Xiaomi. I cannot stand listening to people make arguments against the GFC along "muh censorship muh surveillance" when those arguments are patently disingenuous: the West conducts these actions unopposed by Chinese critics, ergo the criticism cannot genuinely be against censorship or surveillance. And, from the beginning, Chinese leadership has argued for the GFC from a protectionist policy---which, clearly, has worked! Nobody wants to recognize or accept this, however, and still reverts to parroting commentary about how China censors their internet and represses their citizenry. It's all knowingly dishonest, disingenuous, slimy criticism and rhetoric, purely propaganda in nature.
View quoted note →