Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 365 posts

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#201

Post by rtpg »

nerdsniper wrote: post #61
orange_joe wrote: post #18

interesting. Manus is nominally a Singapore based company and should be immune to these actions. Tiktok argued that it was headquartered in Singapore with a Singaporean CEO. breaking singapore’s fig leaf might prove problematic in the long run.

The founders are Chinese citizens, and pressure was applied to the founders personally. Thus Singapore was given room to save face re: sovereignty.

> After a $75 million fundraising round led by U.S. venture firm Benchmark in May 2025, Manus shut its China offices in July, laying off dozens of employees. It then moved its operations to Singapore.

The company itself was based in mainland China less than 12 months ago.

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#202

Post by mothballed »

pear01 wrote: post #199
mothballed wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact you shouldn't ask questions you don't know the answer to is one of the indicators that the judicial and legislative systems is broken. That's a principle that is hostile to inquisitive and curious reasoning.

a cross examination or a congressional hearing is not a university lecture. would you like your liberty to be at risk just so a judge or a senator can satisfy their curiosity at your expense? do you have any idea what the penalties can be for failing to comply with a judicial or congressional subpoena? is the penalty of perjury consistent with "inquisitive and curious reasoning"? or is that an instrument of "hostilit…

If you want to flip the script and attack subpoenas, sure. Involuntary subpoena power is hostile in and of itself. It's form of indentured servitude or temporary slavery without even an accusation of crime or wrongdoing. I think it's morally abhorrent and I am not advocating for violence enforced subpoena power of those not even under indictment of misconduct to exist. These subpoenas themselves are not an exhibition of being 'free' as you proudly use the word.

I don't see how what you're saying as attacking what I'm saying. You're attacking involuntary subpoena power. I don't disagree with you. It's an interesting red herring, and I find it an interesting topic, so I'm happy to discuss it but not under the pretenses you are weakening my argument. But it's not impossible to get rid of subpoena power and still have judicial or legislative powers, even if you argue the judicial system will be less effective or some such (personally I think the benefits of being 'free' outweigh the advantages of subpoena).

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#203

Post by Saline9515 »

stego-tech wrote: post #49
reissbaker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been all over this this thread responding with the same whataboutist comments claiming America does the same thing. And yet, I'm pretty sure America hasn't held American citizens hostage in order to force them to unwind a sale of a foreign company they founded to a different foreign company.

[flagged]

Of the course the USA does it. Obama was totally ruthless with such economic warfare, including on the US usual lackeys. See for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#204

Post by Saline9515 »

Daishiman wrote: post #167
bit-anarchist wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The media is almost daily full of China scares That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source? > there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese. Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.

> That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source? Have you not been reading The Economist for the past 20 years of the WSJ since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch? They've been predicting the downlfall of China every other month.

Can you point to this month's article then so we have a sample?

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#205

Post by pear01 »

mothballed wrote: post #202
pear01 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a cross examination or a congressional hearing is not a university lecture. would you like your liberty to be at risk just so a judge or a senator can satisfy their curiosity at your expense? do you have any idea what the penalties can be for failing to comply with a judicial or congressional subpoena? is the penalty of perjury consistent with "inquisitive and curious reasoning"? or is that an instrument of "hostilit…

If you want to flip the script and attack subpoenas, sure. Involuntary subpoena power is hostile in and of itself. It's form of indentured servitude or temporary slavery without even an accusation of crime or wrongdoing. I think it's morally abhorrent and I am not advocating for violence enforced subpoena power of those not even under indictment of misconduct to exist. These subpoenas themselves are not an exhibition…

Sorry, I simply don't know what point you are making. If you are trying to propose some alternative system that is one thing. I'm merely clarifying that your statement does not make sense in the context of the system we already have. It is not meant to be a red herring. The reason that adage about "don't ask questions..." even exists among trial lawyers is because of the state's great power over its own citizens (and others it has authority over).

Now I guess maybe what you are saying is that the state shouldn't have these powers, and therefore we should be able to more freely ask and answer questions in courts and congress, then fine. But I'm not sure I agree with that or I want to engage with whatever you proposed alternative is. I think simply it doesn't comport to equate some kind "hostility to inquisitive and curious reasoning" to the adage, because the point is that the courts are not a venue for such a thing.

Now if you think they should be, that is a separate argument. I don't see how any institution that has the power to deprive people of their liberty could ever be a venue for "inquisitive and curious reasoning". Which is why I said the courts and congress are not the universities. In fact, there is very good historical literature that elucidates the role of the university as something of a sovereign entity in the Western tradition given this almost definitional tension with the institutions of the state.

In reading the subtext in your comment, I think we may agree in more than a few areas, but we are just coming at this from slightly different directions. Again, the adage came up with respect to Cotton's performance as an examiner in the context where people in his position have great power to damage those sitting before him.

It's an adversarial system by design. If you want to redesign it fine, but the adage makes sense given this is the system. It applies to Cotton in this case as well, even if he is the state here, because naturally even though there will not be any real consequences for him, he still falls under the same risks re the success of making an argument in this kind of venue if you ask a question without considering the answer you will be eliciting. I also don't really think him asking essentially the same question about his citizenship multiple times is a species of "inquisitive and curious reasoning" anyway. So while I think I may sympathize with your general notions I'm not sure I really know what you are getting at.

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#206

Post by axus »

stego-tech wrote: post #16
wxw wrote: post #6

> After a $75 million fundraising round led by U.S. venture firm Benchmark in May 2025, Manus shut its China offices in July, laying off dozens of employees. It then moved its operations to Singapore. > It was not immediately clear on what grounds China was seeking the annulment of a deal involving a Singapore-based company and how, if at all, a completed acquisition transaction would be unwound. > Manus' two co-foun…

I suspect this is more of a warning shot to others attempting the same playbook ("Singapore-washing", as I've heard folks call it): the state is watching, and shifting geopolitics means it's in their interest to retain successful talent and entities at home rather than let opposition have them. If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way o…

I'm totally fine with what-about-ism here; making China a better place to live and do business is out of my jurisdiction and doesn't help me, encouraging the USA to do better will.

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#207

Post by hug »

r14c wrote: post #173
kccqzy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not. I am referring to the Chinese race. Their nationality could be Taiwanese or even Malaysian and the result is the same.

Then the word you're looking for is likely Han, Chinese is only a nationality, not an ethnicity.

I dug a little into this because I was curious who was more correct here.

From wikipedia, which links to what seems like a relatively reliable source:

> The Singapore Department of Statistics broadly defines "Chinese" as a "race" or "ethnic group", in conjunction with "Malay, Indian and Others" under the CMIO model.[10] They consist of "persons of Chinese origin" such as the Hokkiens, Teochews, Hainanese, Cantonese, Hakka, Henghuas, Hokchias/Foochows, Shanghainese and Northern Chinese, etc."[11]

So I would, on the balance of things, think that kccqzy meant what they said, and was pretty correct about it.

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#208

Post by nsagent »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #187
nutjob2 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false equivalence. Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail. That power can only be granted by a judge. China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever.

> Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail This has historically not been the case, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson

The first case makes sense: ex-CIA officer explicitly outing CIA officers. Naturally, the government is going to step in and it's a false equivalence to compare to restricting random citizens.

As for your second case, US schools teach about the perils of McCarthyism. You neglected to link to the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 1958 overturning the confiscation of the passport over protected speech. Note how long ago that was and how it's taught as a black stain on US history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles

Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus

#209

Post by nikkwong »

RobertoG wrote: post #123
strangegecko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're doing a lot that goes against that strategy, you just don't see it in the headlines except in cases such as these or when you dig into how they conduct international negotiations or business deals involving the Chinese market. Not to mention how they are openly expansionist in the SCS and obviously wrt Taiwan. Of course they want to be seen as reasonable, their ideal is to control the international narrative…

So, who would you say that spend more resources 'controlling the international narrative', the USA or China?

China at least does it covertly. The US president broadcasts his madman narrative on Twitter for everyone to see.
Post reply on HN