Facebook's Zuckerberg will not appear before British MPs

> I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room".

Arguably, that perception is exactly why he has to send a clear subordinate if he isn't going himself, and not someone perceived to be his babysitter.

> Regarding democracy and authoritarianism, keep in mind the the country was super poor and uneducated. Ceding power democratically across the country would have probably resulted in massive corruption.

Are you claiming China's government isn't massively corrupt right now?

> The country is not a dictatorship though

Never claimed that it was (at this moment).

> Believe it or not the population of China overwhelmingly supports their government. The authority and legitimacy of a government does not come from democracy per se (nor from opinions of people half-way around the world), but from the people. Democracy is a great way to represent the power of the people, but as long as the population approves and delegates power to the government (by not rebelling), then it has legitimacy.

I too have seen that state-published English-language book about the survey that "shows" the Chinese people want a "moral" government before a democratic one. It's right next to a similar title about "true history" of the Dalai Llama (or something like that) in the bookshop in the international terminal of the Beijing airport. On some level, I agree it's true.

But the question of, "do the Chinese people support their government" is a complicated one that I don't think is even answerable at a meaningful level right now. The Chinese information environment doesn't permit it, since it doesn't give the Chinese people the necessary ideological framework or information about alternatives to even form an independent opinion. I'm sure some people do so anyway, but it's a much harder task. In the west people benefit from concepts like "you can love your country and hate your government;" relatively unbiased information; and more varied, competing, opinions.

> So you think the Chinese government's motivation for protectionism is purely because they are undemocratic evil-doers hell-bent on preserving their power.

> I disagree and believe they have other motivations behind protectionism, limiting democracy, and authoritarianism.

And those motivations are? The historic national humiliation thing? To be honest that reads as more of a convenient "surface" justification akin to American evidence-laundering via "parallel construction" from evidence obtained by illegal surveillance. It's not supported by the history of Google in China, for instance. They had a large ~30% marketshare until they refused to play ball on censorship, they then they were blocked, but not before.

> Are you claiming China's government isn't massively corrupt right now?

The corruption happens at lower levels, and is usually a byproduct of too much power granted to someone who doesn't deserve it. Enabling democracy would have caused more corruption as it requires a well-informed public. China during the revolution was definitely not full of educated and well-informed people.

> But the question of, "do the Chinese people support their government" is a complicated one that I don't think is even answerable at a meaningful level right now. The Chinese information environment doesn't permit it, since it doesn't give the Chinese people the necessary ideological framework or information about alternatives to even form an independent opinion. I'm sure some people do so anyway, but it's a much harder task. In the west people benefit from concepts like "you can love your country and hate your government;" relatively unbiased information; and more varied, competing, opinions.

You're clearly not Chinese, and probably don't many people in China. But I am, and I know people who live in China (middle class, even poor people), and the sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.

> And those motivations are? The historic national humiliation thing? To be honest that reads as more of a convenient "surface" justification akin to American evidence-laundering via "parallel construction" from evidence obtained by illegal surveillance. It's not supported by the history of Google in China, for instance. They had a large ~30% marketshare until they refused to play ball on censorship, they then they were blocked, but not before.

Protectionism is preferred by countries in the same way as the "Buy USA" rhetoric in America that you may be able to relate to. The unique history China had with colonialism is just a bonus. It turns out that China was smart enough to recognize the national importance of the internet technology industry, and levied massive walls against them. You can't easily put an import tax on Google, but you can block them. I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with censorship. Google/Facebook are businesses and would never make a stand by jeopardizing their China business by not complying with local censorship laws. It was never about that. It was simply because they were not welcome, and that if they did flourish they'd have troves of data on Chinese citizens in the hands of a foreign entity.

But their current arrangements are partly a result of political lobbying. So if they’re politically engaged enough to lower their taxes why aren’t they politically engaged enough to answer to this?

Isn’t the Queen’s authority extra-parliamentary?