Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not that I fan of CCP, nor I know details of this situation, but isn’t barring people under investigation from leaving the country a pretty normal legal practice?
But they are not suspected of any crime.
China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
271–280 of 365 posts
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I fan of CCP, nor I know details of this situation, but isn’t barring people under investigation from leaving the country a pretty normal legal practice?
Down with all nation-states! Not the rallying call I expected but I'm here for it
I'm not sure why you specified nation-states when this is just as likely to happen in any state.
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I fan of CCP, nor I know details of this situation, but isn’t barring people under investigation from leaving the country a pretty normal legal practice?
But they are not suspected of any crime.
Isn't violating export controls a crime?
(Also in the US you can still be prevented from leaving the country for a tort (civil matter))
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#274Obviously. With the US first controlling Venezuelan energy supplies to China and then cutting of Iranian energy supplies to China (as well as to the EU), what do you expect? China isn't as stupid as the EU, which just says thanks and would you perhaps like to blow up another pipeline? Hormuz will stay closed by the pirates. LNG terminals are already built in Alaska to supply the Asian "allies", whose economy the US a…
>Obviously. With the US first controlling Venezuelan energy supplies to China and then cutting of Iranian energy supplies to China (as well as to the EU), what do you expect?
Non sequiturs in comment sections.
>China isn't as stupid as the EU, which just says thanks and would you perhaps like to blow up another pipeline?
Ok thats even further afield than I expected.
>Hormuz will stay closed by the pirates. LNG terminals are already built in Alaska to supply the Asian "allies", whose economy the US also ruins.
Alaska?
A company is under investigation due to the way they are trying to phoenix into Singapore and sell to meta.
Sometimes a thing that happens isn't about your personal crusade or the geopolitics you learned on youtube that one time. Hope this helps.
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good answer. The export controls have a strategic purpose - and Manus fits squarely within the spirit of the controls and maybe not the technicality of the rules. Consider that if this were a much smaller project, they'd run afoul of the same technicalities but would they be sanctioned? Probably not. It's very fair to make comparisons as to the arbitrary application of these rules in various regimes, lord k…
Tiktok was about only one thing and that was Israel losing the narrative war as unlike most of western social media which was deranking and censoring showing of Israeli atrocities to the world Tiktok was not.
No, there were efforts to ban TikTok well before Oct 7th 2023 in 2020-2021 by the first Trump Admin, and there was ongoing effort in 2022-2023 during Biden Admin.
TikTok Agrees to Sell U.s. Operations, https://www.tiktok.com/en/trending/detail/tiktok-agrees-to-s... , 25 Dec 2022
Biden approves banning TikTok from federal government phones, https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1144519602/congress-is-about-... , 20 Dec 2022
U.S. is 'looking at' banning TikTok and Chinese social media apps, Pompeo says, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/us-looking-at-banning-tiktok... , 7 July 2020
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#276This just PRC finally applying their version of US export controls, i.e. PRC gets to control PRC originated algos, same argument as TikTok. The founders aren't held "hostage", they're under investigation for violating export control and national security laws. PRC hinted signalled pretty clearly they would use art12 (catch all clause) of export control laws and offshore affiliate rules (to address Singapore loophole)…
[flagged]
The double standards applied between China and Western democracies could work maybe a decade ago, before the US dropped the veil of hypocrisy that shrouded the imperialistic monster.
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow I think there is a real possibility more will happen. Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes. I don't claim to know what's going on outside of what's being reported, but I'm reminded of other individuals who have "stepped out of line" (as determined by Beijing) and were also either barred from the country or mysteriously disappea…
>>> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes. This is standard operating procedure for the CCP. They are a truly ruthless, sinister group who have no scruples about ensuring compliance and using leverage on behalf of Chinese interests. Just look at what happened to Jack Ma.
Oh come on. Look what happened to Russian enterpreneur, Pavel Durov in France, and what happened to Julian Assange and to Edward Snowden. It's the same thing just wrapped in different colored package. You don't cooperate with the government, you have some suffering.
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.
Could you cite the specific law that makes it illegal for someone to export their thoughts?
USA has banned the export of some EDA software from Cadence/Synopsys to China.
Therefore the export-control laws of USA obviously make illegal the export of "thoughts".
An even more clear example if that any US citizen who knows classified information or even just a trade secret of some private company and who would tell that information to China would do something illegal.
In this case China argues that the IP has been created in China and its transfer to Singapore does not make it eligible for transfer to USA.
This is the same argument that USA has used multiple times in the past, e.g. for forbidding ASML to sell equipment to China and for forbidding TSMC to have Chinese customers for its advanced fabrication nodes, despite the fact that in both cases the IP that originated in USA some time ago was only a very small part of the products sold by those companies.
If USA may do this, then China is certainly also entitled to do the same. This is not whataboutism, but both countries must be treated equally, either such actions should be forbidden for both under the international laws, or they should be permitted both to do whatever they please.
There is absolutely no doubt that USA is the country who has invented this concept that its laws can be applied outside its territory and they can be applied to things that are the property of non-US entities, as long as they have any component, no matter how small, which has originally been sold to them, directly or indirectly, by an US entity.
I consider any legal interpretation of this kind as abusive and ridiculous, but no American may criticize a foreign country that does nothing else except imitate what USA does.
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I fan of CCP, nor I know details of this situation, but isn’t barring people under investigation from leaving the country a pretty normal legal practice?
Down with all nation-states! Not the rallying call I expected but I'm here for it
A nation state is a corporation with a monopoly on violence
Re: China blocks Meta's acquisition of AI startup Manus
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a…
These aren't random citizens, these are people accused of violating export controls of sensitive, dual-use technology.
They seem to be the poster children for a flight risk.