> 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-founders, CEO Xiao Hong and chief scientist Ji Yichao, were summoned to Beijing for talks with regulators in March and later barred from leaving the country, five sources familiar with the matter said.
The third quote seems to invalidate the second, no? Under the "grounds" that key people are currently physically in China, and as such, the Chinese government can coerce them to do whatever it wants.
Though I suppose if those two did not have majority ownership of the company, the actual (former) majority owners can refuse to unwind the sale regardless of their wishes. Company might be worth quite a bit less to Meta without those key people, though. Either way, I assume the two people stuck in China won't be seeing a dime of that sale price, which is not cool.
(This is regardless of my feelings about Meta owning more AI capability...)
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 disappeared for weeks or months at a time only to randomly reappear at some point singing a different tune.
>>> 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.
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.
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.
Anyone with a child support order that makes decent money is only one misrecorded or bounced payment away from being ineligible for a passport. The trigger is only 4 digits of USD.
> China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever.
What makes you think there's no legal process for blocking nationals from leaving China?It's a very common instrument and in a bunch of countries it's an administrative measure with even less scrutinity than a judicial mandate. Do you consider France or the UK to be a countries without rule of law or due process?
But to the point in the US, for example, the government can just issue a warrant for you as a material witness or flag your passport and then you can't leave; these are hardly due processes and more like legal workarounds to do exactly the same thing; the US has disappeared plenty of people in much more sinister ways than that, however, so I agree that there's no equivalence here: the US is worse.
All states, by definition, are authorities that demand compliance. You're not saying anything that distinguishes Jack Ma's condition from anyone else's just about anywhere.
Usually they just threaten the family that stayed in china to enforce compliance. As in visit by police and do a video call. Good old socialist playbook. Guess the CEOs were to workaholic ti be threatened with the mafia methods.
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes
I don't think it's actually that uncommon in China, especially with high profile people. To China's credit, we often bar people from leaving the country if they're charged with a crime but not convicted of anything. While it's certainly scary and authoritarian, I think it's par for the course in China. Most companies have some amount of CCP representation in them, either on the board or some level of management.
Shouldn't every country be barring people from leaving the country if they've been charged with a crime? At least if there's a good chance they will flee justice.
This seems like a side issue from the question of whether the charges are legitimate.
This is an exaggeration. But there are things China can do that are legal in the name of national security. I would say it’s just as extreme as what the US would do to Snowden if he came back.
It's extremely common even without a crime. US block or cancel people with extremely small child support debts (I think like $1000 which is a single missed payment for middle class person) and people with moderate tax debts (I think about $25,000) for instance from getting a passport.
Yes, everyone country does this. You can be barred from travel in a wide range of other circumstances in many other countries.
Every person has a nationalistic solipsism that renders them incapable of understanding events that occur outside of their own country. China and the US are two countries where this tends to be most severe, people outside these countries seem to believe they possess a profound and innate understanding of events there that renders them capable of offering a complete opinion (and, in reality, that opinion will almost always be entirely self-referential, 20% of the comments on this thread seem to be talking about the US).
At a high-level, the characterization of China as a lawless dictatorship is undermined somewhat by the higher levels of crime in almost every other country. You will see this interpretation of China from people in the US who live in places where there are constant, visible signs of crime.
> Every country does it. Doing it is a central function of having a government.
You are falling back on whataboutism. This is irrelevant. If we were having a similar debate in the middle ages, you would probably say something like:
> Every church is burning witches and heretics at the stake. Doing it is a central function of having a church.
The CCP has abducted these individuals and is preventing them from leaving the country. This is not ok. You can't justify this by saying "yeah, but they're the government, so it's their right to abduct whoever they want". A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us.
>A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us.
Well yes, a government doesn't need to be sacred to sit above you, it need only have more power. It's legitimacy is conditional on maintaining a monopoly on violence.
If we’re going to descend into pedantry, my statement was normative, not descriptive, as in “I agree this is what a government does, I disagree this is what it _should_ do”.
“Beneath me” is _my_ value judgement that I pass on this government and its appendages as in “it has been weighed in the balance and has been found unworthy”. That this government has more power than me doesn’t make it sit above me as a moral absolute, and it doesn’t magically give it legitimacy.
The government sits above you because it makes you do things under the threat of violence. Why do you stop at the stop sign? because the government reserves the right to hurt you if you don't.
The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours. It's not sacred, it's not magic. It's a bigger stick. Your value judgement would have weight if your stick was bigger. The guy with the bigger stick decides what you (or Jack Ma) is worthy of.
> The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours
By the same argument, are Somalian warlords and Mexican drug cartel also legitimate in the territories they control? I don't "legitimate" is the word you are looking for to describe pure power dynamics, since "legitimate" is imbued with a moralistic judgement (look up is vs ought etc.). But yes, in practice, if I have a gun pointed at my head, I could be forced to do things that go against my judgement (within limits!).
Luckily china has a litany of 3rd world countries land borders surrounding it with porous borders, and in a great deal of them no one who gives too many shits about some poor chinese villager crossing. Americans on the other hand have Canada which for LEO purposes is basically an extension of the US, and Mexico which due to the drug trade and other unique factors mean anyone getting caught jumping the border in either direction is likely to owe the cartel a massive amount of money or some extremely undesirable favors.
I would definitely rather be a trapped Chinese trying to escape than a trapped American.
Would that be lower or higher than the number of people who endlessly bang on about "lefties" and or "fascists", "nazis" et al.
I myself find the numbers that engage in political reductionism and sophism to be truly incredible .. easily a double digit percentage of any population, actual billions in total globally.
Wait, is that actually "incredible" though, or just merely "expected"?
Do you really believe that "activists" and suspected criminals are given the same treatment as some entrepreneurs who just lost their shirts? This feels like an excuse to bring up something that's fundamentally unrelated to the subject at hand, because there are a dozen closer and more useful comparisons to make than Gitmo.
For example how Japan can hold and question people without access to a lawyer, outside of police stations.
This strikes me as a classic case of, “Guy who has only seen The Boss Baby, watching his second movie:
‘Getting a lot of 'Boss Baby' vibes from this!’”
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
Pure speculation on my part, but i would be surprised if China didn't have our equivalent of export control laws, not difficult to fabricate a crime and pin it on founders.
They do have export control laws and such, but based on current and past behavior China’s Communist Party doesn’t need those laws to disappear people or create crimes and then make people guilty of said crimes.
Worth mentioning though that this is not how America functions, nor our rule of law.
Not much, none of those cases from the US resulted in disappearing the founders. The US is a nation of laws, no matter how imperfect. Stark contrast to the CCP.
At the end of the day, the process itself, years of investigation, millions in legal fees, frozen assets, destroyed careers is often the punishment regardless of whether charges stick or convictions hold up.
The US is a democracy, and people are given many procedural and substantive rights, even Guantanamo detainees (we can argue if Boumediene had any practical effect, but we wouldn't have seen the same from China).
But Americans are under the impression that what the world sees is what they mostly see -- the domestic side. And to a certain extent, they do thanks to its cultural influence. This democracy/rule of law, however, is completely absent in way it behaves outside its borders and it's now clearer than ever to everyone that the US is the biggest source of instability in the world. More than Russia. Certainly more than China.
Then you probably are not fit to comment on this matter.
I'm sorry to be that blunt but if you don't understand the value of rule of law, the difference in incentives, the consequences of separation of powers, I can't even grasp what kind of perspective you can build. It's genuinely baffling to me.
Yr parent is new to standard China legal mechanisms and you pivoted off of that to invent a chain of stuff that isn’t real. Are they unfamiliar to us? Yes. But it’s worth speaking to whether the speculation is rational.
Their mistake was not reading the tea-leaves. Just as Youxia Zhang, Weidong He, etc. Although to be fair the party elders and generals were in a no-win situation. They could not just "leave."
They were likely baited to come in with some pretense and once they had them, they would not and will not let them get away.
It's easy to see how this will play out. The entrepreneurs will get nothing. Most likely everyone else that has been paid (investors, etc) will keep what they received. Whether Meta or the CCP ends up with the proceeds of the entrepreneurs, that's anyone's guess.
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 of pushback, so China must feel very confident in its position to use such tactics.
I don't know if America has done anything quite like this. The example I'm looking for is where a company starts in the US but leaves and incorporates outside the US and then the US attempts to block acquisition by a foreign company. Also, the enforcement mechanism while vague seems un-American. America might tax the company upon exit but it wouldn't hold the founders hostage in America. If you have examples I'd be curious.
You don't need to incorporate in the US for this to happen to you. You should look up what happened to Marc Lasus after he founded Gemplus (spoiler, he's on social security while the company the CIA stole from him has $3b revenue) or how Frédéric Pierucci was taken hostage to force the sale of France's nuclear reactors to General Electric. I assume the US does this to all the other countries too.
Being stopped that late is a bit different than the US AFAIK,
but there is certainly the possibility of being stopped from work and (depending how you react) prevented from leaving the US for purely economic inventions:
I find it notable that the US' actual checks on government have worked against expanding the secrecy act further into economic protectionism for favored industries, etc.
This chap was arrested in Thailand, extradited, and did a decade in a US prison because he had the audacity of selling weapons from Russia to Colombia. I'm not sure how exactly US law is of any relevance to such transactions...
---
[1] Or, since 2025, just shoot a missile at your boat, with an option for a follow-up salvo if there any survivors. Strangely enough, everyone who has managed to survive both the initial attack, and the double-tap has so far been repatriated to their countries of origin, with no charges filed by the US.
Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics tried buying Lumileds, blocked again by US. Also Chinese ofc.
Broadcom and Qualcomm deal was also blocked, Broadcom was then Singapore based in process of moving to US I believe... (very sus happened in 2018 too, someone didn't pay Donald enough)
I am certain there must be European examples as well but smaller ofc, AI companies are over valued these days, most acquisitions were never this big in the olden days of pre 2020s...
I know for a fact that most folks don't want to invest in US for this reason other than in public equities or bonds ofc. Private foreign investment in US has been high only due to European pensions and Middle-eastern money going into it.
I don't know about how fair, far, or right it was compared to these were, detaining founders is also not confirmed, but sure let's assume it's true still...
Only difference in US is perhaps foreign folks can sue over it. Sometimes, if they are lucky and if the deal is worth it.
I find it strange people of HN being based in US can be so ill informed of what their country, does to foreign companies but be mad about things foreign companies do to them?
I mean sure rest(96%) of the world doesn't really exist, it's but a myth or a land the better folks of US only want to take value when needed?
Unsure what this comment meant, this has happened before as well btw, these are just post 2010s examples because they are relevant. Russians and US used to do this too, India and US were worse of pre-2000s, Japan and US were at their throats in 1980s, in terms of trade and acquisition...
Famously back in the day Grindr , which had a plot point in the Silicon Valley series . Probably more obscure ones that havent been heard of outside software in the Hard tech space like MotorSich (Ukranian) was being courted by Chinese investment got blocked due to US pressure. And very recently the whole TikTok fiasco.
What examples do you have of the US government doing to CEOs what has happened to people like Jack Ma and many other public figures?
For China, there are so many examples of people doing 180s and being full of contrition after those interventions, it's hard to imagine anything but severe intimidation or worse happening behind closed doors.
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.
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.
US absolutely has exit bans on people who break/is being investigated for national security and export control laws, which is what Manus did. Except Americans don't call it hostage taking when they do it.
As another comment mentioned, comparing "employees trying to selling GPUs to an unauthrorized country" and "CEOs selling a company built on national resources to an outside country" is spherical cows levels of comparison.
Another wrong comment doesn't make being wrong less wrong. CEOs/persons trying to sell controlled technology unauthorized for export by origin country. They are direct legal analogs.
Wrong how? It is your comment that is missing the point. The contention isn't whether USA has export control (you are the one who brought it up), it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.
> it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.
notably china isnt doing this either: they are barring exit, not detaining, and the reason for barring exit was not reported, so its a stretch to say that its to prevent the sale of the company overseas.
The US:
- makes broad claims of jurisdiction
- has export control, which is listed in the article as a potential reason for blocking the sale, and
- restricts exit from the country when it wants to make sure certain people are available to chat
I dont see whats so exciting about pushing on this specific case. There's an error of, "who's tried to export controlled IP by selling their company to a foreign adversary?"
I dont see what's so exciting about this case that the US definitely absolutely wouldnt take a pretty similar approach to china - bring the CEOs to testify before congress and keep them in the country til the government is satisfied. What's so out of the ordinary that makes this interesting? This is the stuff that goes into work compliance courses.
you might instead want to answer which high tech defense contractor for the US has successfully been bought out by say, iran, china, north korea, or russia, that the US has given the OK on?
I expect there's a lack of data either way. It doesnt come up because people generally move their companies to the US, not out
US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If US companies tried o circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against, the law of course they'll likely have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban if flight risk.
Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loopholes and politely signalled them to stop, which they didn't, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, sign and dotted, despite being told not to, because its against export control laws.
Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense. Americans getting exit banned for selling controlled hardware is LESS serious then what Manus tried to do, i.e. lesser (relative) export control crimes in US getting same treatment.
You're right. To my knowledge, we don't hold citizens hostage to force them to unwind the sale of a foreign company they smuggled out of America into another country to a different foreign company.
But you cannot seriously hold America up as blameless when we've wielded our economy as a cudgel against anyone we remotely disagree with (sanctions against Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc; tariffs against everybody), have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice, regularly park our navy off foreign shores to coerce desired outcomes, and dronestrike civilians as a final saber-rattling before full-fledged conflict.
The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell, take a look beyond the past thirty years of history and there's a glut of incidents where empires used this sort of leverage to achieve outcomes - including the United States! We've traded political prisoners to achieve negotiated outcomes repeatedly, we just use different words to make ourselves feel better about it. We've propped up entire puppet states to ensure American corporate interests were served instead!
Like, holy shit, why do I have to teach you naysayers what's already outlined in history books just because you can't be bothered to do the assigned reading?
Just last year the USA de-banked (from EU banks) EU citizens who are International Criminal Court officials for "opening preliminary investigations against Israeli personnel". The USA wields incredible power over financial interactions.
Trump is making it worse, but there had been examples of bad behavior. Now the US is completely uncontrolled. I can't say we wouldn't do something like happened here (trying to stop a foreign company from selling stuff or developing stuff) if it was doing something significant about weapons or ai.
I don't think anyone is holding the US as blameless or perfect, but it gets exhausting to see Chinese propaganda every single time anything like this happens.
When the US does something reprehensible, people rarely come up in droves going on and about China's enablement of the North Korean regime or the many abuses enacted on its population, but every single time the US does anything we had to read a whole lot on how "at least China doesn't invade countries" as if the prime reason as to why China doesn't tend to involve itself militarily isn't precisely American hegemony. The rate at which the country is portrayed as some paragon of human rights, equality and peacefulness is either insane, deluded, or paid for.
The media is almost daily full of China scares.
Also, the comments here are not talking about who started this war, with the GPU sanctions and the arrest of the daughter of Huawei's founder.
Does it mean the Chinese are the good guys? No, because there are not good guys, but 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.
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.
>but 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.
It's not the Chinese? You sure? There's probably nobody more economically aggressive in the planet and they just threw a hissy fit at the EU the other day for doing something they've been doing since forever.
I care not for "the media", I care that I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of people trying to justify this in this very comment section. I'm sure western media is not favorable to Chinese interests, I'd be utterly baffled if Chinese media was favorable to western interests. I do not expect public sentiment to follow a party line because we are better than that, but I do expect a certain reticence to go all out and justify opposition in intellectually rotten ways.
I mean, the whataboutism is a critical tool in negating propaganda. Rather than focus on the reprehensibility of anyone using threats of violence like this to force specific outcomes favorable to domestic policy, everyone is instead hung up on the fact China did this.
Whataboutism, used effectively, is meant to draw parallels rather than excuse behavior. Fuck China for what it's doing here, but also fuck the countries and entities who have used similar tactics in the past to great effect. Don't just conveniently put on blinders for what's happening/happened at home all because the government-labelled "baddie" did it too.
Whataboutism, used effectively, is designed to change the subject and stop detailed exploration of the topic at hand. Which is what you're doing in this thread. We don't need to turn a news-relevant thread specifically about the CCP into a thread relitigating decades of American government and business behavior. You can make a separate submission to discuss the US if you'd like.
This 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) before Manus deal closed - Manus ignored loud hints. The difference is PRC wasn't super judicious in enforcing AI related export controls (especially since agent development new hence art12), US would have ensured this control list tech wouldn't leave US territory via foreign product rule / CFIUS / BIS. PRC gave pretty clear signals to Manus what was going to happen hoping they'd unwind on their own, but they didn't so now they're going to eat shit.
PRC still haven't gone the step up to ban PRC strategic talent from working in US like US has for PRC semi. Don't be surprised in 5-10 years US has to hire PRC workers with obfuscated identities like PRC dealing with US/TW talent in PRC EUV. Plenty more room how these things can escalate depending on how serious PRC starts to treat dual use AI.
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.
> 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.
i understand that perfectly, which is why i responded sarcastically to a point trying to connect this to TikTok's "argument" re their Singaporean CEO by pasting an infamous digression on that very topic.
seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.
Some people are ethnonationalists, and the CEO of Tiktok, while he is Singaporean, is also ethnically Chinese. It seems pretty clear that is what the line of questioning was about, and just saying you are Singaporean and not Chinese does not answer the unstated question. Like his politics or not, it is obvious that Tom Cotton is not an idiot who does not understand that Singapore is not in China (like conversation was interpreted on the Internet when it happened)
What is the American ethnicity? Should all other ethnicities be subjected to the same round of questioning before the United States Congress?
I'm not sure why you are defending Tom Cotton's intelligence. Rule #1 of asking questions in a courtroom or a congressional setting is to anticipate the answers. Put more strongly, it is often said you should not ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If he thought he was going to elicit some Chinese "ethnonationalist" response, then he failed, and as such, was idiotic in pursuing this line of questioning. I agree with you he knows Singapore is not in China. That's not what makes his line of questioning stupid. It is that he essentially asks the same question multiple times and gets the same answer. The reason he looks dumb is because his line of questioning is dumb.
If he had some evidence the CEO was an "ethnonationalist" he could have confronted him with that. He doesn't and he didn't, so instead he committed himself to a bs line of questioning that ended up embarrassing him. If there is an unstated question as you claim, he could have asked it directly. He didn't. Why is that?
What did he achieve by this line of questioning, besides making himself look like a fool? This is his one job, he's one of only 100 people (really less) who gets these opportunities and this is the best he can do? Why are you making excuses for him? Demand better from your representatives.
I should note I am really straining to be charitable to your view. I think the real unstated, obvious subtext here is a white guy from Arkansas with the last name "Cotton" is openly trading in the same type of racist dog whistling his ancestors more than likely engaged in. I mean if we are just going to randomly accuse people of being ethnonationalists why not start with the Senator? Since you see no problem with crafting lines of inquiry based on your rather broad statement that "some people are ethnonationalists" (ok... and?) then maybe we should start with the Senator himself. I mean, why not? What makes the Tiktok CEO a more compelling suspect? I think it's obvious why the clip resonated beyond the feeble questioning - it's because many Americans can empathize with the CEO in this case. If the Senator had done his basic homework he would know Singapore doesn't allow dual citizens, so he already had his answer at the first question, which he would have already known if he had done any basic research. They are supposed to prepare for these things you know.
I mean I really am just disappointed in you, as an American citizen. The idea you need to have your representatives ask these kinds of questions in the United States on the off chance someone is an ethnonationalist... it just feels ironic. You should probably read up on your history most people who ask these types of questions from the seats of power in the United States Senate have historically been the ethnonationalists. As I stated if Cotton had evidence of his views, he could have raised them. Or asked about them directly. Instead he essentially asked the same question about his citizenship numerous times. Why?
I appreciate you replying in what I take to be good faith though. I don't mean to turn it into a question of race/ethnicity alone, which I gather will only alienate you. Then again, you are the one who brought up "ethnonationalism". I'm not even sure I know what exactly you mean by that term, but I find your invocation of it here to be suspect. But I am trying to be charitable to your position. The point remains his line of questioning did not clear up any "ethnonationalist" notions, but honestly I felt I had to edit this and be more straightforward with my criticism of your rejoinder. I just think you might want to consider why this clip resonated, instead of the straw man you seemed to posit (internet thinks Cotton thinks Singapore is in China).
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 "hostility"?
it would not be a free country if the judicial and legislative systems were equated with "inquisitive and curious reasoning". if they want to serve that function they can give up their power to deprive people of their liberty.
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).
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.
Funny when you consider the world owes a lot of AI advancements to both Meta and Google, their open releases really did shift things, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, especially for China, which as far as I know were not releasing as much in AI as they have been beforehand. I remember when Meta released Llama originally people were speculating about it, but it wound up producing a lot of projects that used it, I'm sure some in China. I know that Perplexity has its own custom model on top of Llama that they use for their default model, and its pretty darn good.
If I'm remembering right, it was weirder than that, as Llama's originally release strategy was sort of bizarre.
You did have to apply for access, but if you met their criteria (basically if you were the right profile of researcher or in government), you got direct access to the model weights, not just an API for a hosted model. So access was restricted, but the full weights were shared.
I believe that the model was leaked by multiple people, some of which didn't work at Meta but had been granted access to the weights.
Not sure, but open weights have had their effects. For example, look at Wan 2.2 the last open weights Wan release, still the most powerful Video inference out there, to the level of quality it provides, unfortunately, it went closed source, but before they did, the community had built all sorts of tooling and LoRas on top of it. Nothing comes close for video a year later. Back to llama though, look at all the open models people run offline through their Macs. It definitely had a net positive.
I'm curious how this view fits in with BERT or the T5 release which prior to the current LLM craze were the de facto language models for use in pretty much any tasks. Was this a position that would've otherwise grown without the llama release?
> Funny when you consider the world owes a lot of AI advancements to both Meta and Google
Funny how ByteDance kicked both their asses so hard at RecSys algos, they had to go back to the drawing board to meet the newly redefined expectations on the quality of short-form video recommendations.
>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.
Interesting. I wonder what sorts of threats China could make to back up this demand, or if this is more of a warning for future acquisitions in the space.
That's interesting, because recently China is definitely trying to paint themselves as the reasonable, stable partner, commited to upholding international law (unlike the US, which is ruled by a madman) . Trying to block this aquisition without good legal argument goes directly against that strategy.
The United States is appearing "More Stable" on the international stage with recent events. Normal people might see it as ruled by a "madman", but on the international stage they know what it is... Projecting dominance and forcing the will of America. People seem to forget Iran murdered thousands of innocent civilians with automatic weapons being fired into crowds... and then you call our president a "madman" for destroying their ability to build nuclear weapons?
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 just how they can do it internally in China.
I think you need to give some concrete examples, considering the US happily let its companies offshore a lot of work to China over the years, and Chinese funds own large chunks of American companies.
* We continue to embargo Cuba instead of letting it succeed or fail on its own merits - while also controlling their own land for a Black Ops prison and having attempted repeatedly to assassinate their leaders or create coups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
* Our centralization of global finance and status as a reserve currency lets us dictate global policy on everything from Intellectual Property to National Defense, meaning companies generally have to "play ball" or the host country will incur penalties
I can go on, but really, Wikipedia is right there. If you're looking for a specific analogue to "we kidnapped CEOs and demanded a foreign company unwind their merger", I don't think I can provide that right away; however, if instead you're looking for examples of "country used threats and force to foment an outcome favorable to its domestic policies", well then, boy howdy are there tons and tons of examples out there just a cursory search away.
You basically just parroted a bunch of Howard Zinn agitprop and didn't cite a single example that was remotely similar to this specific incident, because you literally can't. What exactly is your motivation here, because it's certainly not truth-seeking.
Since you think Cuba and China are such nice places, perhaps try living there. You'll quickly find out about their "merits" (such as the fact that they execute dissidents).
Not even getting into the more dubious part of this claim, just because the British or Americans did it doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. If you disagree with that, you're implicitly pro slavery, pro penal expeditions, etc.
Oh, no, it's incredibly reprehensible what China's doing.
Just like it was reprehensible that America propped up the Iranian shah to ensure western oil interests were served. And reprehensible that the British Empire got the Chinese addicted to Opium to force more favorable trade agreements. Also reprehensible is the Cuban blockade imposed by America, which has prohibited the country from thriving or failing on its own merits and forced suffering onto its people.
It's all reprehensible, and it should all be held up lest folks get this notion that America is this infallible savior who can do no wrong. It's bad, and it should never happen, but it does and it will so long as people keep buying into Nationalist narratives like these.
There is this thing called implicit acceptability. If you really find it unacceptable you might want to start close to your circle of concern. Otherwise, pretty sure you find it acceptable by action.
Many, even most people are pro-slavery and pro-whatever as we speak, even paying to see it happen. They only mouth some useless moralizing words.
...bruh. With a name like 'dublinstats', I really would've thought you'd have a better command of the exploitative history of the British Empire and the British East India Company. Like the Opium Wars are right there, but yeah, China's forever the baddie for imposing export controls on domestic resources.
I really wonder what the employee status gonna be like. It has been quite some time now, I think Meta and Manus are deeply binded lol. As a Manus user, I am liking the product. Sad to see social criticism of them and to see this news.
Besides the fact that the founders are in China and are barred from leaving, is there anything that prevents Manus/Meta from just telling the CCP to kick rocks?
Sure they can object to it or claim they are "blocking" the sale, but is there really anything they can do considering that Manus is no longer within their jurisdiction?
I think it's precisely the fact that the founders live in China. The CCP can make them... kick rocks... for the rest of their lives.
Generally speaking this seems bad for Chinese companies, though. They were able to raise capital from the West by running out of "Singapore"; I think basically every investor will have significant pause investing in Chinese-national-owned startups after this, "Singapore-based" or not.
The CCP is known to be very aggressive. Even if the founders acquired Singaporean citizenship (which is way easier for ethnic Chinese people than for other races), the CCP would have taken them hostage if they just set foot in China like for a business trip. They can invent a crime and subject them to a trial with Chinese rules. What can Singapore do? It’s a tiny country that tries to walk a tightrope by simultaneously maintaining good relations with both China and the U.S.
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.
> Generally speaking this seems bad for Chinese companies, though.
Anyone who has ever thought otherwise was just naive. This is anything but news. If you’ve had an impression that China capital market is free and western-like, you were right - it was an impression. Always has been.
Not only that, but they can make life inconvenient for your family. Nobody reasonable would accuse the CCP of outright violence, but there are a million bureaucracy-related tricks the state can pull to leverage you and/or your family.
Are you really asking whether business deals can be unwound for whatever reason, like how ASML is "forbidden" to sell to certain customers after contracts are signed?
> The Chinese government’s intervention in the transaction drew alarm among tech founders and venture capitalists in the country who were hoping to take advantage of the so-called Singapore-washing model, where companies relocate from China to the city-state to avoid scrutiny from Beijing and Washington.
If the US is going to treat AI technology as a strategic issue upon which it's going to play the national security card, it's not really valid to start the pearl-clutching when China does the same.
Seems like Manus and Meta thought they were going to be clever, and that China wasn't going to play any any of the cards they were holding. Even GPT-2 could've told them that was a dumb idea.
Chinese company has an issue being a Chinese company for international legal or optics reasons, relocates to Singapore while still being controlled by Chinese nationals or all-but-Chinese-Nationals. Bytedance is a great example. Russian companies do the same thing with Switzerland, see Kaspersky.
They could just as well relocate to California for that matter.
The question is are they still controlled by the PRC. China doesn't allow dual citizenship (like other Asian countries), so people might legitimately want to work abroad while keeping their native passport.
Tit for tat. US administration thought they would contain China. Now Deepseek v4 is running on their home grown chips. US companies lost that hardware revenue and dependency instead.
It's really hard to tell. Almost all the models have the benchmarks in their training data, which pushes us into the realm of basing model capability rankings on vibes. I think the OSS models tend to do worse on things outside their corpus, but Deepseek specifically has done insanely good work on efficiency and scaling, which is verifiable in a way capabilities are not.
I don't think their social networks are allowed in China.
From your link it looks like they might do R&D for Oculus in China (but may not even be able to sell it there due to the data-collection tie in required).
Not sure what you mean by catering to the export market. b2b sales would be just as restricted as sales to consumers.
There has been a lot of discussion here on why the founders were detained and whether this is normal for other countries. All one has to do is look at what Chinese Communist Party has done to Uyghurs to understand how far they will go to neutralize opposing thought.
So China is just claiming that anyone who is ethnically Chinese should be pressured? Manus is in Singapore and has no direct connections to China physically and financially. SG offices, SG product, SG founders with family on the mainland.
Manus started in China, built by Chinese talent, hence all their work under purview of PRC export control laws, PRC merely closing loophole on SG washing. They haven't even done nuclear option like banning PRC from working in US AI like US has done in PRC semi.
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?
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 also ruins.
If the EU had any backbone, it would cut off the US from ASML.
The world order is early on in a major restructuring. The EU is a major region and on a path to greater self reliance and determination. This is good for the world imo (as an American)
EU is on the right path, but the problem is that we’re going way too slow.
Check out the “28th regime” that standardizes incorporation for European companies, it was announced back in November, and it won’t see the light this year probably. We can’t wait any second more, we need to act now not to become totally irrelevant and it might even be too late.
US controlling the world's energy routes goes back to the Suez Crisis, where it wrestled the canal from Britain. Reagan blew up a Russian-German pipeline. The Nord Stream sabotage was at least condoned and cheered on. Now the closure of Hormuz was first provoked and then co-opted by the US.
> 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-founders, CEO Xiao Hong and chief scientist Ji Yichao, were summoned to Beijing for talks with regulators in March and later barred from leaving the country, five sources familiar with the matter said.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Though I suppose if those two did not have majority ownership of the company, the actual (former) majority owners can refuse to unwind the sale regardless of their wishes. Company might be worth quite a bit less to Meta without those key people, though. Either way, I assume the two people stuck in China won't be seeing a dime of that sale price, which is not cool.
(This is regardless of my feelings about Meta owning more AI capability...)
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 disappeared for weeks or months at a time only to randomly reappear at some point singing a different tune.
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.
It's standard procedure in every country for some investigations.
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.
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
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
What makes you think there's no legal process for blocking nationals from leaving China?It's a very common instrument and in a bunch of countries it's an administrative measure with even less scrutinity than a judicial mandate. Do you consider France or the UK to be a countries without rule of law or due process?
But to the point in the US, for example, the government can just issue a warrant for you as a material witness or flag your passport and then you can't leave; these are hardly due processes and more like legal workarounds to do exactly the same thing; the US has disappeared plenty of people in much more sinister ways than that, however, so I agree that there's no equivalence here: the US is worse.
I don't think it's actually that uncommon in China, especially with high profile people. To China's credit, we often bar people from leaving the country if they're charged with a crime but not convicted of anything. While it's certainly scary and authoritarian, I think it's par for the course in China. Most companies have some amount of CCP representation in them, either on the board or some level of management.
This seems like a side issue from the question of whether the charges are legitimate.
Every person has a nationalistic solipsism that renders them incapable of understanding events that occur outside of their own country. China and the US are two countries where this tends to be most severe, people outside these countries seem to believe they possess a profound and innate understanding of events there that renders them capable of offering a complete opinion (and, in reality, that opinion will almost always be entirely self-referential, 20% of the comments on this thread seem to be talking about the US).
At a high-level, the characterization of China as a lawless dictatorship is undermined somewhat by the higher levels of crime in almost every other country. You will see this interpretation of China from people in the US who live in places where there are constant, visible signs of crime.
Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.
The number of, presumably, left-wing people who advocate for the most extreme forms of libertarianism is truly incredible.
You are falling back on whataboutism. This is irrelevant. If we were having a similar debate in the middle ages, you would probably say something like:
> Every church is burning witches and heretics at the stake. Doing it is a central function of having a church.
The CCP has abducted these individuals and is preventing them from leaving the country. This is not ok. You can't justify this by saying "yeah, but they're the government, so it's their right to abduct whoever they want". A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us.
Well yes, a government doesn't need to be sacred to sit above you, it need only have more power. It's legitimacy is conditional on maintaining a monopoly on violence.
“Beneath me” is _my_ value judgement that I pass on this government and its appendages as in “it has been weighed in the balance and has been found unworthy”. That this government has more power than me doesn’t make it sit above me as a moral absolute, and it doesn’t magically give it legitimacy.
The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours. It's not sacred, it's not magic. It's a bigger stick. Your value judgement would have weight if your stick was bigger. The guy with the bigger stick decides what you (or Jack Ma) is worthy of.
By the same argument, are Somalian warlords and Mexican drug cartel also legitimate in the territories they control? I don't "legitimate" is the word you are looking for to describe pure power dynamics, since "legitimate" is imbued with a moralistic judgement (look up is vs ought etc.). But yes, in practice, if I have a gun pointed at my head, I could be forced to do things that go against my judgement (within limits!).
I would definitely rather be a trapped Chinese trying to escape than a trapped American.
I myself find the numbers that engage in political reductionism and sophism to be truly incredible .. easily a double digit percentage of any population, actual billions in total globally.
Wait, is that actually "incredible" though, or just merely "expected"?
Feels like Guantanamo Bay all over again.
Assuming the best of intentions.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/michael-caster-on-chinas-for...
For example how Japan can hold and question people without access to a lawyer, outside of police stations.
Pure speculation on my part, but i would be surprised if China didn't have our equivalent of export control laws, not difficult to fabricate a crime and pin it on founders.
Worth mentioning though that this is not how America functions, nor our rule of law.
Not sure we can give any lessons to the world.
But Americans are under the impression that what the world sees is what they mostly see -- the domestic side. And to a certain extent, they do thanks to its cultural influence. This democracy/rule of law, however, is completely absent in way it behaves outside its borders and it's now clearer than ever to everyone that the US is the biggest source of instability in the world. More than Russia. Certainly more than China.
I'm sorry to be that blunt but if you don't understand the value of rule of law, the difference in incentives, the consequences of separation of powers, I can't even grasp what kind of perspective you can build. It's genuinely baffling to me.
They were likely baited to come in with some pretense and once they had them, they would not and will not let them get away.
If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way of pushback, so China must feel very confident in its position to use such tactics.
This is relevant too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47765974
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act
I find it notable that the US' actual checks on government have worked against expanding the secrecy act further into economic protectionism for favored industries, etc.
Or just order another country to snatch you up.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou
She was arrested, and was being extradited from Canada into the United States... Because her Chinese company was doing business with Iran.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout
This chap was arrested in Thailand, extradited, and did a decade in a US prison because he had the audacity of selling weapons from Russia to Colombia. I'm not sure how exactly US law is of any relevance to such transactions...
---
[1] Or, since 2025, just shoot a missile at your boat, with an option for a follow-up salvo if there any survivors. Strangely enough, everyone who has managed to survive both the initial attack, and the double-tap has so far been repatriated to their countries of origin, with no charges filed by the US.
For instance US Steel acquisition by Nippon Steel(japanese) is one such example. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vz83pg9eo
More examples,
Ant Group(chinese) tried to buy MoneyGram (blocked in 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/us-blocks-moneygram...
Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics tried buying Lumileds, blocked again by US. Also Chinese ofc.
Broadcom and Qualcomm deal was also blocked, Broadcom was then Singapore based in process of moving to US I believe... (very sus happened in 2018 too, someone didn't pay Donald enough)
https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/india-inc-and-the-cfius-nati... Indian company forced to divest from US tech firm... (2013)
I am certain there must be European examples as well but smaller ofc, AI companies are over valued these days, most acquisitions were never this big in the olden days of pre 2020s...
I know for a fact that most folks don't want to invest in US for this reason other than in public equities or bonds ofc. Private foreign investment in US has been high only due to European pensions and Middle-eastern money going into it.
I don't know about how fair, far, or right it was compared to these were, detaining founders is also not confirmed, but sure let's assume it's true still...
Only difference in US is perhaps foreign folks can sue over it. Sometimes, if they are lucky and if the deal is worth it.
I find it strange people of HN being based in US can be so ill informed of what their country, does to foreign companies but be mad about things foreign companies do to them?
I mean sure rest(96%) of the world doesn't really exist, it's but a myth or a land the better folks of US only want to take value when needed?
Unsure what this comment meant, this has happened before as well btw, these are just post 2010s examples because they are relevant. Russians and US used to do this too, India and US were worse of pre-2000s, Japan and US were at their throats in 1980s, in terms of trade and acquisition...
For China, there are so many examples of people doing 180s and being full of contrition after those interventions, it's hard to imagine anything but severe intimidation or worse happening behind closed doors.
Are you trying to push a red herring?
notably china isnt doing this either: they are barring exit, not detaining, and the reason for barring exit was not reported, so its a stretch to say that its to prevent the sale of the company overseas.
The US:
- makes broad claims of jurisdiction - has export control, which is listed in the article as a potential reason for blocking the sale, and - restricts exit from the country when it wants to make sure certain people are available to chat
I dont see whats so exciting about pushing on this specific case. There's an error of, "who's tried to export controlled IP by selling their company to a foreign adversary?"
I dont see what's so exciting about this case that the US definitely absolutely wouldnt take a pretty similar approach to china - bring the CEOs to testify before congress and keep them in the country til the government is satisfied. What's so out of the ordinary that makes this interesting? This is the stuff that goes into work compliance courses.
you might instead want to answer which high tech defense contractor for the US has successfully been bought out by say, iran, china, north korea, or russia, that the US has given the OK on?
I expect there's a lack of data either way. It doesnt come up because people generally move their companies to the US, not out
why is this the hill to die on?
Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loopholes and politely signalled them to stop, which they didn't, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, sign and dotted, despite being told not to, because its against export control laws.
Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense. Americans getting exit banned for selling controlled hardware is LESS serious then what Manus tried to do, i.e. lesser (relative) export control crimes in US getting same treatment.
But you cannot seriously hold America up as blameless when we've wielded our economy as a cudgel against anyone we remotely disagree with (sanctions against Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc; tariffs against everybody), have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice, regularly park our navy off foreign shores to coerce desired outcomes, and dronestrike civilians as a final saber-rattling before full-fledged conflict.
The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell, take a look beyond the past thirty years of history and there's a glut of incidents where empires used this sort of leverage to achieve outcomes - including the United States! We've traded political prisoners to achieve negotiated outcomes repeatedly, we just use different words to make ourselves feel better about it. We've propped up entire puppet states to ensure American corporate interests were served instead!
Like, holy shit, why do I have to teach you naysayers what's already outlined in history books just because you can't be bothered to do the assigned reading?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci
Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia?
You should have just left it at that.
When the US does something reprehensible, people rarely come up in droves going on and about China's enablement of the North Korean regime or the many abuses enacted on its population, but every single time the US does anything we had to read a whole lot on how "at least China doesn't invade countries" as if the prime reason as to why China doesn't tend to involve itself militarily isn't precisely American hegemony. The rate at which the country is portrayed as some paragon of human rights, equality and peacefulness is either insane, deluded, or paid for.
The media is almost daily full of China scares. Also, the comments here are not talking about who started this war, with the GPU sanctions and the arrest of the daughter of Huawei's founder.
Does it mean the Chinese are the good guys? No, because there are not good guys, but 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.
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.
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.
It's not the Chinese? You sure? There's probably nobody more economically aggressive in the planet and they just threw a hissy fit at the EU the other day for doing something they've been doing since forever.
I care not for "the media", I care that I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of people trying to justify this in this very comment section. I'm sure western media is not favorable to Chinese interests, I'd be utterly baffled if Chinese media was favorable to western interests. I do not expect public sentiment to follow a party line because we are better than that, but I do expect a certain reticence to go all out and justify opposition in intellectually rotten ways.
I wonder how that came about?
What’s that fence analogy called?
Chester-what?
Whataboutism, used effectively, is meant to draw parallels rather than excuse behavior. Fuck China for what it's doing here, but also fuck the countries and entities who have used similar tactics in the past to great effect. Don't just conveniently put on blinders for what's happening/happened at home all because the government-labelled "baddie" did it too.
There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.
PRC still haven't gone the step up to ban PRC strategic talent from working in US like US has for PRC semi. Don't be surprised in 5-10 years US has to hire PRC workers with obfuscated identities like PRC dealing with US/TW talent in PRC EUV. Plenty more room how these things can escalate depending on how serious PRC starts to treat dual use AI.
"In January, Beijing began investigating Manus for compliance with export controls [...]"
You could make way more money as an AI shill.
The company itself was based in mainland China less than 12 months ago.
So you said today, as you often say that you live in Singapore. Of what nation are you a citizen?
Shou Chew:
Singapore.
Cotton:
Are you a citizen of any other nation?
Chew:
No, Senator.
Cotton:
Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?
Chew:
Senator? I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.
Cotton:
Do you have a Singaporean passport?
Chew:
Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.
Cotton:
Do you have any other passports from any other nations?
Chew:
No, Senator.
Cotton:
Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens?
Chew:
That's correct.
Cotton:
Have you ever applied for American citizenship?
Chew:
No, not yet.
Cotton:
Okay. Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?
Chew:
Senator? I'm Singaporean, no.
Cotton:
Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?
Chew:
No. Senator, again, I'm Singaporean.
seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.
I'm not sure why you are defending Tom Cotton's intelligence. Rule #1 of asking questions in a courtroom or a congressional setting is to anticipate the answers. Put more strongly, it is often said you should not ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If he thought he was going to elicit some Chinese "ethnonationalist" response, then he failed, and as such, was idiotic in pursuing this line of questioning. I agree with you he knows Singapore is not in China. That's not what makes his line of questioning stupid. It is that he essentially asks the same question multiple times and gets the same answer. The reason he looks dumb is because his line of questioning is dumb.
If he had some evidence the CEO was an "ethnonationalist" he could have confronted him with that. He doesn't and he didn't, so instead he committed himself to a bs line of questioning that ended up embarrassing him. If there is an unstated question as you claim, he could have asked it directly. He didn't. Why is that?
What did he achieve by this line of questioning, besides making himself look like a fool? This is his one job, he's one of only 100 people (really less) who gets these opportunities and this is the best he can do? Why are you making excuses for him? Demand better from your representatives.
I should note I am really straining to be charitable to your view. I think the real unstated, obvious subtext here is a white guy from Arkansas with the last name "Cotton" is openly trading in the same type of racist dog whistling his ancestors more than likely engaged in. I mean if we are just going to randomly accuse people of being ethnonationalists why not start with the Senator? Since you see no problem with crafting lines of inquiry based on your rather broad statement that "some people are ethnonationalists" (ok... and?) then maybe we should start with the Senator himself. I mean, why not? What makes the Tiktok CEO a more compelling suspect? I think it's obvious why the clip resonated beyond the feeble questioning - it's because many Americans can empathize with the CEO in this case. If the Senator had done his basic homework he would know Singapore doesn't allow dual citizens, so he already had his answer at the first question, which he would have already known if he had done any basic research. They are supposed to prepare for these things you know.
I mean I really am just disappointed in you, as an American citizen. The idea you need to have your representatives ask these kinds of questions in the United States on the off chance someone is an ethnonationalist... it just feels ironic. You should probably read up on your history most people who ask these types of questions from the seats of power in the United States Senate have historically been the ethnonationalists. As I stated if Cotton had evidence of his views, he could have raised them. Or asked about them directly. Instead he essentially asked the same question about his citizenship numerous times. Why?
I appreciate you replying in what I take to be good faith though. I don't mean to turn it into a question of race/ethnicity alone, which I gather will only alienate you. Then again, you are the one who brought up "ethnonationalism". I'm not even sure I know what exactly you mean by that term, but I find your invocation of it here to be suspect. But I am trying to be charitable to your position. The point remains his line of questioning did not clear up any "ethnonationalist" notions, but honestly I felt I had to edit this and be more straightforward with my criticism of your rejoinder. I just think you might want to consider why this clip resonated, instead of the straw man you seemed to posit (internet thinks Cotton thinks Singapore is in China).
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 "hostility"?
it would not be a free country if the judicial and legislative systems were equated with "inquisitive and curious reasoning". if they want to serve that function they can give up their power to deprive people of their liberty.
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).
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.
I was working at Google at the time. Before Llama, releasing weights was not even worth a discussion.
You did have to apply for access, but if you met their criteria (basically if you were the right profile of researcher or in government), you got direct access to the model weights, not just an API for a hosted model. So access was restricted, but the full weights were shared.
I believe that the model was leaked by multiple people, some of which didn't work at Meta but had been granted access to the weights.
Funny how ByteDance kicked both their asses so hard at RecSys algos, they had to go back to the drawing board to meet the newly redefined expectations on the quality of short-form video recommendations.
Unlike common benchmarks for LLMs.
Interesting. I wonder what sorts of threats China could make to back up this demand, or if this is more of a warning for future acquisitions in the space.
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 just how they can do it internally in China.
It's a disgusting playbook, but it's also an effective one if you're a state trying to exert control over important players or entities.
* The US and UK propped up the Iranian Shah to help western oil interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
* US Export Controls basically handcuff anyone of import involved in creating anything of value to the state: https://www.investopedia.com/u-s-export-restrictions-6753407
* We continue to embargo Cuba instead of letting it succeed or fail on its own merits - while also controlling their own land for a Black Ops prison and having attempted repeatedly to assassinate their leaders or create coups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
* Our centralization of global finance and status as a reserve currency lets us dictate global policy on everything from Intellectual Property to National Defense, meaning companies generally have to "play ball" or the host country will incur penalties
* That time we overthrew the democratically-elected government of Guatemala because they imposed radical ideas like a minimum wage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état
* And that time we overthrew the democratically-elected socialist government in Chile to prop up exploitative labor practices and resource extraction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27état
I can go on, but really, Wikipedia is right there. If you're looking for a specific analogue to "we kidnapped CEOs and demanded a foreign company unwind their merger", I don't think I can provide that right away; however, if instead you're looking for examples of "country used threats and force to foment an outcome favorable to its domestic policies", well then, boy howdy are there tons and tons of examples out there just a cursory search away.
Complete disregard for human life for profit.
Just like it was reprehensible that America propped up the Iranian shah to ensure western oil interests were served. And reprehensible that the British Empire got the Chinese addicted to Opium to force more favorable trade agreements. Also reprehensible is the Cuban blockade imposed by America, which has prohibited the country from thriving or failing on its own merits and forced suffering onto its people.
It's all reprehensible, and it should all be held up lest folks get this notion that America is this infallible savior who can do no wrong. It's bad, and it should never happen, but it does and it will so long as people keep buying into Nationalist narratives like these.
Many, even most people are pro-slavery and pro-whatever as we speak, even paying to see it happen. They only mouth some useless moralizing words.
okiedokie.
Sure they can object to it or claim they are "blocking" the sale, but is there really anything they can do considering that Manus is no longer within their jurisdiction?
Generally speaking this seems bad for Chinese companies, though. They were able to raise capital from the West by running out of "Singapore"; I think basically every investor will have significant pause investing in Chinese-national-owned startups after this, "Singapore-based" or not.
Nationals. The word you are looking for is nationals.
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.
Anyone who has ever thought otherwise was just naive. This is anything but news. If you’ve had an impression that China capital market is free and western-like, you were right - it was an impression. Always has been.
They kept him under house arrest for years and now he complies
If the US is going to treat AI technology as a strategic issue upon which it's going to play the national security card, it's not really valid to start the pearl-clutching when China does the same.
Seems like Manus and Meta thought they were going to be clever, and that China wasn't going to play any any of the cards they were holding. Even GPT-2 could've told them that was a dumb idea.
The question is are they still controlled by the PRC. China doesn't allow dual citizenship (like other Asian countries), so people might legitimately want to work abroad while keeping their native passport.
Also, regarding that "tit for tat", how large of a "tat" is due, regarding decades of corporate espionage?
That is the leverage that China has.
https://www.metacareers.com/v2/locations/shanghai/?p[offices...
https://www.metacareers.com/v2/locations/hongkong/?p[offices...
I also assume, like most advertising platforms, they cater heavily to the China export market.
From your link it looks like they might do R&D for Oculus in China (but may not even be able to sell it there due to the data-collection tie in required).
Not sure what you mean by catering to the export market. b2b sales would be just as restricted as sales to consumers.
They're not. A significant part of ad spend by the likes of Temu, AliExpress, Shein and other Chinese exporters are on Meta's platforms: e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/31/metas-continued-rally-could-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...
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 also ruins.
If the EU had any backbone, it would cut off the US from ASML.
Check out the “28th regime” that standardizes incorporation for European companies, it was announced back in November, and it won’t see the light this year probably. We can’t wait any second more, we need to act now not to become totally irrelevant and it might even be too late.
Yes, this is about the rest of the world.
ASML depends on a lot of US technologies.