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.
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?
I wasn't actually trying to distinguish away from states but rather from nations. I understand "nation" to have a specific meaning centered around sovereignty within indigenous scholarship. I should've just used "state" but I didn't think it'd sound as edgy
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.
Oh no taking passport for flight risks during investigation for basically treason... down with... every government in the world.
Anyway that said, with respect to PRC export controls "barring people" is also not wrong conclusion persay. For those down in the thread wondering what PRC can do about it. PRC doesn't have US 80+ years tier of extraterritorial instrument, i.e. banking. But PRC does have fuckload of talent, i.e. 50+ of global AI, soon 50%+ of global semi.
Seems like talent is going to get controlled according to new rules on countering foreign states unlawful extraterrestrial jurisdiction measures from state council a couple weeks ago. IIRC decree 834/5. There's a reason it was front loaded before Manus announcement. TLDR make it illegal for Chinese nationals to work in any US/foreign company that PRC puts on malicious entity list.
In theory, this cuts off huge % of PRC talent willing to work for targeted companies, unless companies spend $$$ guaranteeing green cards, because PRC nationals working in these companies or affiliating with individuals (including Manus founders if their scheme worked out), i.e. Facebook, would basically be committing treason. A fuckload of greencards because need to buy out all stakeholders, i.e. it kills poaching entire PRC teams / companies, any PRC talent funnel dead for affected companies. Nevermind coercing families, many competent PRC talent has millions in RE/assets, if not personally then via inheritance, all gone. Ask where US AI or tech would be without tons of tier1 PRC talent. Of course some will argue this good thing (derisking etc).
I don't think this has much to do with export control-- note that Manus, as impressive as it is, is still a wrapper around fundamental western models--, rather it has more to do with capital controls.
China has been trying to stop large scale outflow of businesses and individuals for quite some time, due to local politics concern. What Manus was doing, achieving successes first in China then setup a nominal shell company in Singapore, seems like a textbook case of flight (润）, which China is trying to prevent.
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 knows 'TikTok' has been treated like a Pinata, but still, it'd be naive to think that this is about 'some rule'. It's about the 'Grand Game'.
Should note: the 'nominal shell' stuff I think is fair game for all nations to be scrutinizing. All of this 'Caribbean Island Incorporation' I think violates 'the spirit' of commercial laws and practices anyhow. It'd be one thing if Manus was 'really' a Singapore company but that it's truly just 'some paperwork' gives legitimacy to the 'onshore rules' being applied.
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.
Anyone who says it’s about one thing is probably under-informed, we also saw how tiktok was pressured into showing people different realities in Russia and Ukraine.
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.
There were National Security ghouls pushing a TikTok ban as far back as 2020 because of the "China bad" angle, but it didn't really become a widespread and bipartisan concern until after the latest round of massacres amped up in Gaza and USAians started seeing atrocities on TikTok.
China is bad. It's a hyper authoritarian state using information collected from accounts for nefarious purposes, including informing their influence campaigns, targeting and they were censoring for specific issues.
It's unthinkable that any free nation would allow a fairly oppressive and powerful entity to have that kind of power.
China had (has) it's own police force in Canada, monitoring ex-pats and students, and very actively monitors nationals and ex-nationals, they us research funding to leverage acquiescence on those kinds of things on campus etc..
Media, Finance and other 'core industries' are protected everywhere, the only place it's less visible is the US, because they haven't needed to - the nation is huge relative to it's peers.
Instead of being TikTok specific, most nations should have foreign surveillance rules and they should be applied much more severely to the extent that those nations are authoritarian / totalitarian etc..
China should not be allowed to own any media entities in the West, full stop.
Most nations should definitely ban US Social Media companies from hosting certain kinds of data, have some domiciling rules that protect form CLOUD act etc..
All of that proportional to the risk and general concerns; obviously the US represents a risk vector of greater proportion than in 2008, so rules need to adjust.
You made a vacuous comment, lacking any reason or principle.
The 'National Security Ghouls' are those arresting people for comments such as yours, putting them into camps, cutting access to information, disabling travel or access to services, shutting down expression and dissent, intervening in judicial affairs, arresting journalists, telling students what they cannot say, threatening and intimidating ex-pats etc..
> It's a hyper authoritarian state using information collected from accounts for nefarious purposes, including informing their influence campaigns, targeting and they were censoring for specific issues.
As an american, I'm already used to that from my own government.
Are you gaslighting Israel has been committing a genocide long before Oct 7th. Reactions of people after the shock of Oct 7th wore off made Israel to actually do something about tiktok using its Israel lobby. The only one that can get both US parties do what it wants without much debate
China is citing national security as AI is becoming a key industry. It's no different from all the times the US intervened to stop China from buying out US companies. E.g.
> President Trump issued an order blocking the $1.3 billion sale of a Portland, Ore.-based company called Lattice Semiconductor to private equity firm Canyon Bridge Capital Partners. The stated rationale for Trump’s order was national security.
> 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...)
The two cofounders will not be able to work for Meta. Probably it will be complicated to distribute Manus in Hong Kong, possibly Singapore too.
But Manus's IP was already transferred and in any case Meta is not legally doing business in China, so Manus will still live on, possibly get rebranded.
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.
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.
Breaking the export rules. Tech workers should be used to the idea of a "Invention Assignment Agreement".
Manus was built in China and all of its development happened there. In order to skirt Chinese review of the deal they tried to close down shop there and move to Singapore.
I don't think China is being unreasonable. I'm sure the US would act exactly the same way if an American tech company raised money from China and then tried to close down in the US and move all of its IP and technology to a different country so that it can be bought out by Alibaba or Bytedance without having to deal with US approval
There is no equivalent exit ban in the US that can be instituted on a whim for regulatory or business disputes. If you want to know more, you can read up on it in this Stanford Journal of International Law publication:
Do you read the news? Whether or not to stop Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel was being discussed everywhere. On what basis was that power?
> Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel can be stopped by the US President based on a recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), citing risks to national security under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act.
National security risks. Exactly what China is citing. It's literally the exact same situation.
> Two days ago, President Trump issued an order blocking the $1.3 billion sale of a Portland, Ore.-based company called Lattice Semiconductor to private equity firm Canyon Bridge Capital Partners. The stated rationale for Trump’s order was national security.
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.
In the US, the Passport Denial Program, since 1998 (other developed countries enacted similar legislation), following the 1992 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) [2]:
> The Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program was enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. While authorized in 1996, the program was jointly implemented by the U.S. Department of State and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in June 1998.
So were these founders found violating a child support order?I'm still unclear on what crime they actually committed and what they're being investigated for.
Is it possible that they are merely pawns in a political dispute between two rival countries?
It's one thing to block an acquisition because you don't want your rival to gain an advantage, an action which is not limited to the CCP.
It's another thing to detain an individual when no crime was committed.
"Missing" (but quite often only due to a clerical misreporting) a payment isn't facially criminal and isn't even established as "violation" without a contempt hearing where you can argue why you didn't actually violate it. So the passport denial is even looser than that.
I'm just pointing out the bar isn't much different except dressed up in a think of the children meme. I'm not justifying either one.
Understood. I'd note that the difference is that with a missed payment, you can simply make that payment (which can be a relatively small one as you noted) and you're free and clear.
With these Chinese founders, I'm not sure it's quite so simple.
> 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.
America is not exactly a shining moral example for the world, particularly these days, but these Chinese apologist takes can be a bit baffling to read at times.
It mostly doesn't make any sense and seems to be motivated by some kind of animus or bigotry. But maybe understandable given the current administration's behavior.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"?
> 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 think "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!).
The history of civilization is warlords showing up and saying "Give me 2 bags of wheat from each crop and I won't kill you. Not only that, once I own you, I will fight to make sure the other ensure the other guy can't steal you from me, and that you remain productive."
So long as the warlord can make good on that agreement, you have political order. Over time many abstractions emerge, but backing it all up is the big stick. Now, I'm with you, from a moral standpoint it's all abhorrent. As an anarchist I view civilization to be a hack on the human condition, and I see all states as fundamentally authoritarian.
So it's all just game theory to me. China blocked the Manus acquisition as a matter of national interest. The US also ignores international law on matters on national interest at its own convenience.
If a law is unenforceable is it really a law? Anybody can declare a law. It is only meaningful if it can be enforced.
There are regions of Mexico where cartels hold the monopoly on violence, and the longer they maintain that control the more legitimate they become.
> As an anarchist I view civilization to be a hack on the human condition, and I see all states as fundamentally authoritarian.
I think we are not really in disagreement, it's mainly an argument over the semantics of "legitimate" at this point :) Rousseau and Hobbes were both right.
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.
Surveillance in the PRC is massive and centralized. There's a reason NK fleeing into the PRC plummeted when the PRC decided to stop turning a blind eye.
A valid point. Although PRC citizens have a little easier time explaining why they are in the PRC than North Koreans, and there are hundreds of miles of sparse Chinese border area where no one even knows where China starts/ends and where Pakistan or India begins. Out of places where there is a known border, Myanmar for instance is infamous for porosity.
The reason why NK have stopped is largely either NK enforcement or being caught while in the PRC without permission to reside in the PRC. Both of which are highly mitigated for PRC citizen (PRC citizens can have issues spending time in cities they're not authorized to live in, but less so with merely "visiting" countryside).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not their thought, it's core technology created under PRC registered entities before Singapore switcheroo, which makes their IP PRC origin and under purview of PRC according to PRC law. For actual law, article 13 of PRC 2020 export control. Basically catchall provision / blanket ban hammer (for cases of new tech like AI agent), i.e. presumption of denial / ban.
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.
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
Although it's true that there's no stated direct link between barring the CEO's exit and Manus's deal, it's not that much of a stretch to say that, specially given China's priors.
Still, I'll concede since that's not what's relevant to me. I'm more curious about the claim that USA would do the same. I can see congress calling the CEO to testify, but keep them in the country until the government is satiafied? How? AFAIK congress has no such power, and the executive may try, and they might be struck down by the courts.
While US has export controls, this wouldn't be a company incorporated, or running, for that matter, in the US (so the Supermicro already doesn't qualify). It would be a company, say, incorporated in the UK. Even if the company started in the US, this, AFAIK, would be unprecedented. Hence the relevance of showing a prior case.
And, make no mistake, I'm not here to say USA is better than China, but these "China is just doing what USA does" claims are getting ridiculous.
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.
What are you talking about? Here are the concrete differences:
1. The U.S. has had a long-standing, extremely public policy that you Cannot Sell Nvidia Chips to China since 2022. Supermicro is an American company (based in San Jose, California), and they sold chips to China from 2024-2025, and they got caught, so they were arrested.
2. Manus founders created... an agent harness? And their company was incorporated in Singapore, not in China. And after they sold their Singaporean company to Meta, China decided that selling Singaporean agentic software "violated export controls" (and even the CCP representative couldn't list which supposed control it violated), and detained them all in China and is attempting to force the Singaporean company to unwind the sale.
These are not really comparable. The Supermicro folks are running a company in America and knew ahead of time, for years, that what they were doing violated American export controls. In the case of Manus, they weren't a Chinese company, no one knew they were supposedly violating unwritten export controls, and China decided post-hoc to detain them all and attempt to force the (Singaporean!) company to unwind the sale.
Quite simply this has never happened in corporate America. America is very friendly to corporations and you'd have to be wildly, knowingly in the wrong to get arrested for an M&A deal.
No they're exactly the same, except Manus more retarded than Nvidia and Supermicro.
1. US had wiffle waffle export control policies on what TIER of compute that was exportable. When policies were unclear and compute threshold shifted, Biden admin signalled blank understanding of "presumption of denial" in interregnum while policy figured out exact controls. Nvidia stopped exporting until clarity. That's what due diligence / compliance means.
2. Manus created AI algo in PRC and hence under PRC purview. Fired their PRC team and thought incorporating in Singapore was loophole to transfer PRC controlled tech to US for fat paycheck. PRC was signalled before sale finalizes the Singapore loophole was not some lawfare gotcha to circumvent export controls. This was PRC version of presumption of denial. Ultimately PRC gets to decide if Manus technology CREATED IN PRC is exportable, and under what conditions. PRC company in Singapore fine, using Singapore to transfer to US... not fine. The amount of signals Manus got was similarly clear. PRC writings were talking about art13 of PRC export controls being triggered long before sales. Manus did the retarded and illegal (treasonously) thing and decided to go through with sale and forced PRC hand, when due diligence meant you know, not. AKA Manus did a supermicro but more egregious.
America so friendly they have to export control PRC... prevent US talent from working in PRC semi amirite. Oh wait, turns out when it comes to national security / duo use tech both sides are wildly not business friendly and can play the same geopolitical game. This hasn't happened in America, because quite frankly US businesses are not retarded enough to flaunt US national security instruments due to US gov extraterritorial reach. Manus thought they can do so with PRC who has less extraterritorial = reach, and now PRC slapping them as example. Also no one's arrested yet, just exit ban for ongoing investigation. But would not be surprised if they do end up getting arrested, because they wildly, knowingly in the wrong.
The U.S. restrictions on Nvidia compute were clear and extremely widely reported on for years prior to Supermicro's sales. That's why Nvidia created special Chinese-market versions of their GPUs, e.g. the H800 and H20, which Supermicro was free to sell at the time (although eventually those were banned as well, which was similarly widely reported on and well known). The rest of your post is, similarly, basically nonsense.
You mean the widely reported and well known industry confusion around TPP revision and timeline of ban a800/h800, first 30 days then immediately i.e. it was moving goal posts / wiffle waffled and anything but extremely clear. US used presumption of denial to stop NVidia from selling A800 and H800 when US gov had no solid idea what TPP threshold to set, Nvidia had to wait months for BIS to specifically determine denial bucket for H20 (notification requirement). This directly analogous to Beijing hinting to Manus to hit the breaks for clarity... which you know Nvidia did in absence. Nvidia did not ILLEGALLY sell POTENTIALLY/UNDER EVALUATION export controlled goods, which Manus did. Nvidia HALTED ~3B in PRC orders and ate like ~5B inventory tax due to regulatory fog. If Nvidia sold, they would have done a supermicro, this comparison of Nvidia correct behavior vs supermicro and manus incorrect behavior, and you can bet your ass someone at Nvidia was going to get the supermicro/manus treatment.
Your grasp of subject matter and timeline is actually, complete nonsense.
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.
The Taiwanese? This is actually a perfect example of what I was saying.
Talking about 'Taiwan' and 'border disputes with the PRC' meanwhile the USA is doing a maritime blockade of Cuba and Iran. And that it's without talking about bombing countries or military deployed thousand of miles away from their borders, of God forbid, unconditional support to Israel, who just displaced one and a half million people.
But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Chinese are very bad?
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.
Nah I prefer to discuss with people who have some basic literacy or googling skills because if you search for "economist predicting the fall of china" you'll find both their articles and the commentary surrounding it.
I also regularly keep up with The Economist and other western news outlets and I completely agree with GP's impression that we see a "China is doomed" opinion piece every other month. Same with geopolitical youtubers.
Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for what is common knowledge is just a silly way to shut down discussion instead of engaging with it
If you can't show any proof or even circumstantial evidence of your theory, it's worthless and the Economist is not a China-doomer paper.
The reality is that it's a lie and the Economist is quite balanced about China (even while they are banned from publishing there!). For instance, their latest cover was quite positive about the country: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/04/01/how-china-hopes...
Finally, some sources. At least we can analyze those.
The first, from 2015 (year of the 2015-2016 Chinese stock market turbulence), is an analysis of the response of the other countries to the aforementioned issue. With that context, its cover seems to be the usual attention grabbing shit other journals do, lest you want to conclude that the Economist also has a vendetta against USA for some of its covers.
The other articles simply show specific issues they noted: the second is about the effect of the trade war and how that will slow China but it'll be fine otherwise; the forth is repeating a concern of some authrorities, but it has no tone of "this will end China".
The third one is the closest, being about discrepanciea between the numbers reported by the top officials and the local governments. It mentions the possibility of being worse than it appears, but, at the end, it also posits whether it actually is given the lack of worry from party officials.
In all, doesn't seem that different from the average doomerism you see for other countries (including the US). They, to me, appear much more likely to be clickbaits than actual propaganda pieces.
Given the dates of these results, I suspect you specifically searched for the Economist saying anything negative about China's economy. If so, not exactly a good starting point for measuing bias. Now, to be fair, Google results can be different from user to user and you did at least post some actual the Economist links, in contrast to that bogus Reddit post you linked.
What's actually impressive is how you are baffled for doing the bare minimum. "That's common knowledge" is just a cheap excuse for ending discussions. But I'll elaborate on that on the other chain.
Now, for comparison, here are my 3 top results from searching "The Economist china" in Google:
That user always does this. They make bold claims then frantically google and fail to read their own links, and it’s always in favor of China or some communist dictatorship.
If I were discussing a formal argument in debate club sure. I don't do googling for others when the first 10 results in google for this is either source articles from The Economist of a half dozen forum threads commenting the same thing for the past 5 years.
I asked you for a single article representing your claim, since it is so common it should be easy to find? It's as ridiculous as if I declare that the earth is flat, but provide no explanation since "you can google".
Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence
Buddy, they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" as the heading.
Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.
If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.
(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)
I have tackled the cover in another comment, so I'll skip it here.
You speak for others as if you are a representative for them. Somehow, it doesn't go through your mind that other people might have different readings and perspectives from articles or papers, and you default to accusing them of just not reading. A view that's possibly amplified by certain social bubbles. Evidence of that lies in your, basically gratuitous, accusation of sinophobia.
This ties to the "common knowledge" issue. Due to diversity, there is no such thing as objective "common knowledge", thus it is always subjective to social groups. Best case scenario, appeal to common knowledge is simply an intolerant way of uncritically asserting your biases onto others, who might not even belong to any of your social groups. Worst case scenario, it's used by bad actors to gaslight their way through a discussion.
Someone asked you to fetch the current month's article (not a study) to use as a sample. Instead of just quickly googling and linking it, allowing the conversation to go forward, you kept trying to dismiss and avoid doing your due dilligence. Only after many posts, you managed to post a analyzable sample. If that's not a waste of energy, I don't know what is.
If you genuinely believe this was a total waste of energy, you could've just left. If your arguments were solid, no further comments would take them down (that is, if you made actual arguments, not just claims before).
I'm not here to change your mind (specially given how you treat all your proof as "common knowledge", which indicates that is so enshrined in your perspective, that only a serious event can actually change), but to either: present a point or debunk bogus/baseless claims (primarily this one). Other people can read through our posts and reach their own conclusion.
Yes, of course, the perceived editorial line of the Economist is similar to the Holocaust. Also, it is quite easy to do in the later case, you can link the relevant wikipedia article.
Depends if we are in agreement. If we are, no. If we aren't and we want to have a sincere discussion, yes.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
>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.
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.
Yeah if an American tech firm had been working in the US for 5 years and then tried to close all US offices down and move its IPs and tech to a different country so that it can sell out to Alibaba or Bytedance, I'm sure the US would react in the same exact way.
The sinophobia in this thread is ridiculous. Whether you agree or disagree with what China is doing, nothing is happening that wouldn't also happen in the US.
What sinophobia? I haven't seen anyone here talking shit about chinese indivuduals. Or are they trashing China (the nation-state)? If we count that as xenophobia, is any unjust criticism of USA "americanphobia"? If so, fine, but I'd rather not anthropomorphize megacorps with monopolies on violence.
You don't think it's possible that Japanophobia could fuel criticisms of Nintendo? Or that Russophobia could fuel criticisms against a Russian company?
One thing is to say that some of the comments may be motivated by xenophobia (could be true, but I'm no psychic, and you likely aren't either), another is to use the criticisms as proof of xenophobia.
Since you mentioned Nintendo, do you think the many criticisms(fair or otherwise) against Nintendo and their games are due to Japanophobia?
I think its fairly clear that, when talking bad about China, they are focusing on its goverment, not its people nor ethnicities.
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).
Maybe it is about idealistic concepts like "ethnonationalism", but a pragmatic perspective is just that: someone with critical ties/stakes with PRC makes them vulnerable to PRC pressure (just look up PRC overseas police services, or the expanding reach of its National Security Law).
Tbh, its either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised that powers with stakes on an issue won't pressure to have outcomes lean in their interests. There are centuries of examples of this.
And? What strawman are you attacking? No one disputed that pragmatic concern. How did Cotton's viral line of questioning help clarify if or how the CEO was "vulnerable to PRC pressure"?
Should American CEOs who do business in China be subjected to the same lines of questioning re their citizenship? You think Americans who do business in China aren't influenced or "vulnerable to PRC pressure"? China is a huge market, one of (if not perhaps the most) desirable in the whole world. You think American companies don't behave to please the PRC when operating in China?
Tbh it is either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised at the idea that American citizens running international businesses are somehow immune to "PRC pressure" given the PRC is the government of one of the largest and most desirable markets in the entire world.
Tom Cotton's line of inquiry is embarrassing on all grounds. The fact you have to draw up a strawman to defend it says a lot. As with the claim of "ethnonationalism", if he had even a shred of concrete evidence re PRC pressure he could have brought it to bear and dispensed with the repetitive citizenship questionnaire.
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.
I don't think it was much of a leak, there was no significant verification--I think .edu email approved automatically. It was probably just there because copyright law related to it was more uncertain then, but they had stronger fair use case with an academic/research gate on it.
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.
Also Chinese companies are now single-handedly keeping the future of LLMs open-sourced. DeepSeek being the pinnacle of this. Not only do they publish weights and code, but they publish detailed papers detailing their approach
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you please stop with this style of commenting? This is not what HN is for – ideological battle, cross-examination, sneering/snark. The thing HN is for is curious conversation, and you'll be much more at home here if you can keep that in mind and make an effort to heed the guidelines.
I think you're misreading my tone because the other poster was so opinionated. I didn't think being Chinese was insulting or something, but had expected a continuing discussion there.
And I think my prior response in the thread was rather highbrow and clever, referencing ancient history.
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.
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 have no idea and for me it's not the central question.
I don't like it from any party, but from a moral standpoint, the more authoritarian someone is about their propaganda, the more invasive and violent it feels to me.
I perceive what the CCP is doing as denying my (and other people's) humanity and individual rights. I simply cannot accept a government that imprisons artists and human rights activists. A world where art is crime is not one I find worth living in.
I perceive American propaganda in the same category as advertising, harmful and annoying, but they won't lock me up or threaten my safety if I speak up against the propaganda. Well, at least that's how it used to be, who knows with the current trajectory.
Personally, I prefer the US approach. At least then everyone knows what they're dealing with and they can openly react instead of being forced into a fake dance between what is said and what is REALLY said.
The covert stuff gives some degree of plausible deniability and it causes a good amount of the population to be complacent and ignore reality. I don't see how this can be considered good for anyone but the people creating propaganda.
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?
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.
Naive or not, plenty of investors believed that running a company out of Singapore would shield them from the aggressively un-free Chinese market controls. Manus is proving them wrong, which will hurt Chinese companies that try to run out of Singapore for access to Western capital markets.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
What does "annulment" even mean once the deal has closed? The weights, IP, and engineers are already inside Meta. Beijing can force the founders to sign whatever they want, they're physically there, but you can't claw back code that's already been integrated.
This is a signaling move. The real impact is on the next deal: any China-origin founder eyeing a Singapore or Delaware flip now has to price in "state summons you home" as a real risk. India had a softer version in 2022–23 when RBI rules pushed PhonePe, Groww, and Razorpay to reverse-flip back before IPO.What does "annulment" even mean once the deal has closed? The weights, IP, and engineers are already inside Meta. Beijing can force the founders to sign whatever they want, they're physically there, but you can't claw back code that's already been integrated.
This is a signaling move. The real impact is on the next deal: any China-origin founder eyeing a Singapore or Delaware flip now has to price in "state summons you home" as a real risk. India had a softer version in 2022–23 when RBI rules pushed PhonePe, Groww, and Razorpay to reverse-flip back before IPO.
Should countries also stop doing business with the US? With the UK? Countries act the same way to preserve the interests, it's just that you agree with the Western narrative.
the manus founders moved the entire company, researchers, and IP out of china to singapore. most of the researchers and business is still there, but unfortunately the founders wives/parents and family stayed in china. ultimately this is why they had to come back when the PRC summoned them after the meta acquisition.
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.
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.
A specific case in which the US demanded a tiny fraction of what China does systematically, orders of magnitude worse. Okay. Didn't even take that into account to begin with but that's an even larger "tat" then I guess.
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.
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.
That's not any more relevant than if I were to bring up the US' own concentration camps.
In August of 2024, the ACLU released a report on these camps called "Resistance, Retaliation, Repression: Two Years in California Immigration Detention".
Here's some of the issues it highlighted:
- forced labor in order to afford to eat. The $1/day "Voluntary Work Program" is the only way you're gonna get enough food to live. And if you refuse to work or try to protest, ICE doesn't have to give an excuse to send you into solitary confinement. CoreCivic sells this labor to companies
- extensive use of solitary confinement often for "minor disciplinary infractions or as a form of retaliation for participating in hunger strikes or for submitting complaints"
- dozens of documented deaths from forced labor and medical neglect
No doubt these issues have only gotten worse since the publication of this report.
The US holds 25% of the world's prison population. It is one of the few countries in the world where someone's voting rights can be taken away for being inprisoned. Prisoners also have to pay "rent" but don't have a way of making money. If they do ever get out, they're saddled in debt for the rest of their lives—increasing the chance they go right back in to this for-profit scheme
The governments need to keep their noses away from private companies, unless private companies turn to directly, or indirectly, limit their own competition using nefarious practises.
Politicians need to be kept in check, or else, they become dictators. If not, then it's just a matter of when, not if, that that transition happens.
The thing is such actions from govt.'s usually start with the right intent and in a very limited scope... but, with time, both gets traded away for having more political control over entire ecosystem, thereby, allowing corruption to creep-in, and on a more extreme level, illegal arrests and account freezes.
The issue is always the human nature: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
[flagged]
How much is Xi paying the Washington Post, which reports:
"In January, Beijing began investigating Manus for compliance with export controls [...]"
You could make way more money as an AI shill.
all the epetroyuan pandabond credits.
[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?
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
and also that initially took power through violence.
I'm not sure why you specified nation-states when this is just as likely to happen in any state.
Like me they probably assumed nation-state was just another word for state.
I wasn't actually trying to distinguish away from states but rather from nations. I understand "nation" to have a specific meaning centered around sovereignty within indigenous scholarship. I should've just used "state" but I didn't think it'd sound as edgy
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))
Marking someone as a flight risk for committing a crime is common practice in all countries.
I guarantee the same would've happened in the US if this was the reverse situation.
> for committing a crime
What’s the crime?
Violating the export laws as cited elsewhere in this thread.
Enjoying a succulent meal, I guess
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.
Oh no taking passport for flight risks during investigation for basically treason... down with... every government in the world.
Anyway that said, with respect to PRC export controls "barring people" is also not wrong conclusion persay. For those down in the thread wondering what PRC can do about it. PRC doesn't have US 80+ years tier of extraterritorial instrument, i.e. banking. But PRC does have fuckload of talent, i.e. 50+ of global AI, soon 50%+ of global semi.
Seems like talent is going to get controlled according to new rules on countering foreign states unlawful extraterrestrial jurisdiction measures from state council a couple weeks ago. IIRC decree 834/5. There's a reason it was front loaded before Manus announcement. TLDR make it illegal for Chinese nationals to work in any US/foreign company that PRC puts on malicious entity list.
In theory, this cuts off huge % of PRC talent willing to work for targeted companies, unless companies spend $$$ guaranteeing green cards, because PRC nationals working in these companies or affiliating with individuals (including Manus founders if their scheme worked out), i.e. Facebook, would basically be committing treason. A fuckload of greencards because need to buy out all stakeholders, i.e. it kills poaching entire PRC teams / companies, any PRC talent funnel dead for affected companies. Nevermind coercing families, many competent PRC talent has millions in RE/assets, if not personally then via inheritance, all gone. Ask where US AI or tech would be without tons of tier1 PRC talent. Of course some will argue this good thing (derisking etc).
I don't think this has much to do with export control-- note that Manus, as impressive as it is, is still a wrapper around fundamental western models--, rather it has more to do with capital controls.
China has been trying to stop large scale outflow of businesses and individuals for quite some time, due to local politics concern. What Manus was doing, achieving successes first in China then setup a nominal shell company in Singapore, seems like a textbook case of flight (润）, which China is trying to prevent.
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 knows 'TikTok' has been treated like a Pinata, but still, it'd be naive to think that this is about 'some rule'. It's about the 'Grand Game'.
Should note: the 'nominal shell' stuff I think is fair game for all nations to be scrutinizing. All of this 'Caribbean Island Incorporation' I think violates 'the spirit' of commercial laws and practices anyhow. It'd be one thing if Manus was 'really' a Singapore company but that it's truly just 'some paperwork' gives legitimacy to the 'onshore rules' being applied.
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.
That was the straw that broke the camels back but it was always a big concern.
Anyone who says it’s about one thing is probably under-informed, we also saw how tiktok was pressured into showing people different realities in Russia and Ukraine.
TikTok was about capital realizing that feed algorithms are cheaper and more subtle to buy than advertising or a newspaper.
Same reason Elon bought Twitter.
Money is money, but convincing people is power.
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
There were National Security ghouls pushing a TikTok ban as far back as 2020 because of the "China bad" angle, but it didn't really become a widespread and bipartisan concern until after the latest round of massacres amped up in Gaza and USAians started seeing atrocities on TikTok.
China is bad. It's a hyper authoritarian state using information collected from accounts for nefarious purposes, including informing their influence campaigns, targeting and they were censoring for specific issues.
It's unthinkable that any free nation would allow a fairly oppressive and powerful entity to have that kind of power.
China had (has) it's own police force in Canada, monitoring ex-pats and students, and very actively monitors nationals and ex-nationals, they us research funding to leverage acquiescence on those kinds of things on campus etc..
Media, Finance and other 'core industries' are protected everywhere, the only place it's less visible is the US, because they haven't needed to - the nation is huge relative to it's peers.
Instead of being TikTok specific, most nations should have foreign surveillance rules and they should be applied much more severely to the extent that those nations are authoritarian / totalitarian etc..
China should not be allowed to own any media entities in the West, full stop.
Most nations should definitely ban US Social Media companies from hosting certain kinds of data, have some domiciling rules that protect form CLOUD act etc..
All of that proportional to the risk and general concerns; obviously the US represents a risk vector of greater proportion than in 2008, so rules need to adjust.
As I said, National Security ghouls.
You made a vacuous comment, lacking any reason or principle.
The 'National Security Ghouls' are those arresting people for comments such as yours, putting them into camps, cutting access to information, disabling travel or access to services, shutting down expression and dissent, intervening in judicial affairs, arresting journalists, telling students what they cannot say, threatening and intimidating ex-pats etc..
Oh, you mean ICE? No, NatSec ghouls are more bipartisan than that.
> It's a hyper authoritarian state using information collected from accounts for nefarious purposes, including informing their influence campaigns, targeting and they were censoring for specific issues.
As an american, I'm already used to that from my own government.
Are you gaslighting Israel has been committing a genocide long before Oct 7th. Reactions of people after the shock of Oct 7th wore off made Israel to actually do something about tiktok using its Israel lobby. The only one that can get both US parties do what it wants without much debate
China is citing national security as AI is becoming a key industry. It's no different from all the times the US intervened to stop China from buying out US companies. E.g.
https://hvmilner.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2...
> President Trump issued an order blocking the $1.3 billion sale of a Portland, Ore.-based company called Lattice Semiconductor to private equity firm Canyon Bridge Capital Partners. The stated rationale for Trump’s order was national security.
> 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.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
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...)
The co-founders have roots in China. As such it's already a done deal that China will get its way.
The two cofounders will not be able to work for Meta. Probably it will be complicated to distribute Manus in Hong Kong, possibly Singapore too.
But Manus's IP was already transferred and in any case Meta is not legally doing business in China, so Manus will still live on, possibly get rebranded.
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.
Dealt with is the founders / team / investors losing out of the $2B. That’s the punishment from China.
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.
Gemini, Give me examples of people that the US has retained passports pending investigations
It's standard procedure in every country for some investigations.
And what exactly are these founders being investigated for?
Breaking the export rules. Tech workers should be used to the idea of a "Invention Assignment Agreement".
Manus was built in China and all of its development happened there. In order to skirt Chinese review of the deal they tried to close down shop there and move to Singapore.
I don't think China is being unreasonable. I'm sure the US would act exactly the same way if an American tech company raised money from China and then tried to close down in the US and move all of its IP and technology to a different country so that it can be bought out by Alibaba or Bytedance without having to deal with US approval
There is no equivalent exit ban in the US that can be instituted on a whim for regulatory or business disputes. If you want to know more, you can read up on it in this Stanford Journal of International Law publication:
"Legal Strategy for Commercial Hostage-taking and Business Exit Bans" https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/SJIL_60-...
Do you read the news? Whether or not to stop Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel was being discussed everywhere. On what basis was that power?
> Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel can be stopped by the US President based on a recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), citing risks to national security under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act.
National security risks. Exactly what China is citing. It's literally the exact same situation.
EDIT: In fact, the US regularly stops acquisition of US companies by China https://hvmilner.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2...
I love that there is an actual 48-page research paper on the exact comment that you were responding to and completely refutes their assertion.
What a mic drop.
[dead]
> Two days ago, President Trump issued an order blocking the $1.3 billion sale of a Portland, Ore.-based company called Lattice Semiconductor to private equity firm Canyon Bridge Capital Partners. The stated rationale for Trump’s order was national security.
https://hvmilner.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2...
This is false equivalence.
Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail. That power can only be granted by a judge.
China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever.
> Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail
This has historically not been the case, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson
The first case makes sense: ex-CIA officer explicitly outing CIA officers. Naturally, the government is going to step in and it's a false equivalence to compare to restricting random citizens.
As for your second case, US schools teach about the perils of McCarthyism. You neglected to link to the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 1958 overturning the confiscation of the passport over protected speech. Note how long ago that was and how it's taught as a black stain on US history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles
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.
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.
In the US, the Passport Denial Program, since 1998 (other developed countries enacted similar legislation), following the 1992 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) [2]:
> The Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program was enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. While authorized in 1996, the program was jointly implemented by the U.S. Department of State and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in June 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Enforcement
[1]: "The [US] Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program" https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12660
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve...
So were these founders found violating a child support order?I'm still unclear on what crime they actually committed and what they're being investigated for.
Is it possible that they are merely pawns in a political dispute between two rival countries?
It's one thing to block an acquisition because you don't want your rival to gain an advantage, an action which is not limited to the CCP.
It's another thing to detain an individual when no crime was committed.
"Missing" (but quite often only due to a clerical misreporting) a payment isn't facially criminal and isn't even established as "violation" without a contempt hearing where you can argue why you didn't actually violate it. So the passport denial is even looser than that.
I'm just pointing out the bar isn't much different except dressed up in a think of the children meme. I'm not justifying either one.
Understood. I'd note that the difference is that with a missed payment, you can simply make that payment (which can be a relatively small one as you noted) and you're free and clear.
With these Chinese founders, I'm not sure it's quite so simple.
You didn't have to bring out the big gun usernames, we get it, you run a bot farm.
Did you respond to the wrong post?
> 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.
America is not exactly a shining moral example for the world, particularly these days, but these Chinese apologist takes can be a bit baffling to read at times.
It mostly doesn't make any sense and seems to be motivated by some kind of animus or bigotry. But maybe understandable given the current administration's behavior.
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.
I don't know what Durov did, but Assange and Snowden released classified government documents.
Is that what these two founders did?
They are good actually.
Jack Ma is fine. If that's what you mean by ruthless then it's not really a big deal.
He's fine because he complied with the authorities.
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.
That is nonsense. There is the rule of law and there is the arbitrary actions of regimes that are a law unto themselves.
How much do you know about Chinese law, actually?
[dead]
that's true in every country.
Not at all. In non totalitarian/authoritarian countries you're fine if you stay on the right side of the law, instead of the whims of the regime.
Who writes the laws?
Jack Ma comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown
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.
[flagged]
> 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.
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.
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.
What do you make of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47927544
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.
lol, your current president and congress dont seem to be following your own laws.
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.
Not sure we can give any lessons to the world.
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.
Maduro will certainly have a fair trial.
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.
Epstein maybe ?
“No new US trials are currently planned for the Epstein cases because there has not been credible evidence“
Application of the laws genuinely depends of how much money you have.
We also see it with companies, like if you are OpenAI or Nvidia it suddenly becomes ok to copy pirated works.
Rich people pay damages, poor people go to prison.
Out-of-court settlements are prime definition of such.
Technically, yes the law is followed.
The same with gifts you can officially make to judges in Texas.
Anywhere on this planet where people who have connections can influence the outcome, no matter what is written on a paper, and the US is not exempt.
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
Feels like Guantanamo Bay all over again.
In what conceivable way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_Surveillance_at_a_...
This seems like, to be very very VERY generous as per the guidelines, a case of limited superficial similarities being blown out of proportion.
Assuming the best of intentions.
Wikipedia's description of RSDL does not go into gory details. They are not hard to look up though. See e.g.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/michael-caster-on-chinas-for...
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.
Indefinite detention without charges. Sounds exactly the same.
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!’”
Your response strikes me as someone who thinks they're not a cunt, being a cunt.
> 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.
The Manus founders had already left China. They were called back and went willingly, because if you don't go back, then China disappears your family.
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.
Thanks for explaining why they would willingly return.
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.
Just because the US also does this doesn’t make it right for China to do it and vice versa.
Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.
Every country does it. Doing it is a central function of having a government.
The number of, presumably, left-wing people who advocate for the most extreme forms of libertarianism is truly incredible.
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"?
The horseshoe theory of politics continues to be true, just in new and exciting ways
> 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 think "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!).
The history of civilization is warlords showing up and saying "Give me 2 bags of wheat from each crop and I won't kill you. Not only that, once I own you, I will fight to make sure the other ensure the other guy can't steal you from me, and that you remain productive."
So long as the warlord can make good on that agreement, you have political order. Over time many abstractions emerge, but backing it all up is the big stick. Now, I'm with you, from a moral standpoint it's all abhorrent. As an anarchist I view civilization to be a hack on the human condition, and I see all states as fundamentally authoritarian.
So it's all just game theory to me. China blocked the Manus acquisition as a matter of national interest. The US also ignores international law on matters on national interest at its own convenience.
If a law is unenforceable is it really a law? Anybody can declare a law. It is only meaningful if it can be enforced.
There are regions of Mexico where cartels hold the monopoly on violence, and the longer they maintain that control the more legitimate they become.
> As an anarchist I view civilization to be a hack on the human condition, and I see all states as fundamentally authoritarian.
I think we are not really in disagreement, it's mainly an argument over the semantics of "legitimate" at this point :) Rousseau and Hobbes were both right.
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.
Surveillance in the PRC is massive and centralized. There's a reason NK fleeing into the PRC plummeted when the PRC decided to stop turning a blind eye.
A valid point. Although PRC citizens have a little easier time explaining why they are in the PRC than North Koreans, and there are hundreds of miles of sparse Chinese border area where no one even knows where China starts/ends and where Pakistan or India begins. Out of places where there is a known border, Myanmar for instance is infamous for porosity.
The reason why NK have stopped is largely either NK enforcement or being caught while in the PRC without permission to reside in the PRC. Both of which are highly mitigated for PRC citizen (PRC citizens can have issues spending time in cities they're not authorized to live in, but less so with merely "visiting" countryside).
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.
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.
Looks like the issue will be “dealt with” though we don’t know how exactly.
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.
The US doesn't need to do 'something like this', they can just bar you from the global financial system if they don't like you. [1]
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.
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.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci#Im...
This is relevant too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47765974
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:
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.
We maintained control of EUV tech after selling key parts to the Dutch, but that came out of US public-private partnerships and not pure private.
US has blocked merges of companies especially with Chinese and other non western companies. Including Japan, India etc.
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...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
A guy committing insider trading ain’t the same thing
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/01/16/congress/ti...
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.
I think the big difference is rule of law.
When the US does it, you can appeal with an independent court.
When China does it those options don’t exist.
Please cite an example.
Not sure if serious, you think US doesn't make people surrender passports for NSL investigations, i.e. Supermicro trio surrendered their passports.
Not comparable. The Supermicro trio wasn't trapped for trying to sell a company to China.
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?
Each sectors have their own laws for that (nuclear, defense, dual-use techs, etc).
Take any knowledge you’d like with you in your head.
Now think what is going to happen if you export these thoughts from your mouth to your North Korean best friend.
Now the same with Israeli best friend.
Same laws, just one extra entry on the list arbitrarily made by politicians, not independent courts.
It's not their thought, it's core technology created under PRC registered entities before Singapore switcheroo, which makes their IP PRC origin and under purview of PRC according to PRC law. For actual law, article 13 of PRC 2020 export control. Basically catchall provision / blanket ban hammer (for cases of new tech like AI agent), i.e. presumption of denial / ban.
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.
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.
Are you trying to push a red herring?
> 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
why is this the hill to die on?
Although it's true that there's no stated direct link between barring the CEO's exit and Manus's deal, it's not that much of a stretch to say that, specially given China's priors.
Still, I'll concede since that's not what's relevant to me. I'm more curious about the claim that USA would do the same. I can see congress calling the CEO to testify, but keep them in the country until the government is satiafied? How? AFAIK congress has no such power, and the executive may try, and they might be struck down by the courts.
While US has export controls, this wouldn't be a company incorporated, or running, for that matter, in the US (so the Supermicro already doesn't qualify). It would be a company, say, incorporated in the UK. Even if the company started in the US, this, AFAIK, would be unprecedented. Hence the relevance of showing a prior case.
And, make no mistake, I'm not here to say USA is better than China, but these "China is just doing what USA does" claims are getting ridiculous.
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.
What are you talking about? Here are the concrete differences:
1. The U.S. has had a long-standing, extremely public policy that you Cannot Sell Nvidia Chips to China since 2022. Supermicro is an American company (based in San Jose, California), and they sold chips to China from 2024-2025, and they got caught, so they were arrested.
2. Manus founders created... an agent harness? And their company was incorporated in Singapore, not in China. And after they sold their Singaporean company to Meta, China decided that selling Singaporean agentic software "violated export controls" (and even the CCP representative couldn't list which supposed control it violated), and detained them all in China and is attempting to force the Singaporean company to unwind the sale.
These are not really comparable. The Supermicro folks are running a company in America and knew ahead of time, for years, that what they were doing violated American export controls. In the case of Manus, they weren't a Chinese company, no one knew they were supposedly violating unwritten export controls, and China decided post-hoc to detain them all and attempt to force the (Singaporean!) company to unwind the sale.
Quite simply this has never happened in corporate America. America is very friendly to corporations and you'd have to be wildly, knowingly in the wrong to get arrested for an M&A deal.
No they're exactly the same, except Manus more retarded than Nvidia and Supermicro.
1. US had wiffle waffle export control policies on what TIER of compute that was exportable. When policies were unclear and compute threshold shifted, Biden admin signalled blank understanding of "presumption of denial" in interregnum while policy figured out exact controls. Nvidia stopped exporting until clarity. That's what due diligence / compliance means.
2. Manus created AI algo in PRC and hence under PRC purview. Fired their PRC team and thought incorporating in Singapore was loophole to transfer PRC controlled tech to US for fat paycheck. PRC was signalled before sale finalizes the Singapore loophole was not some lawfare gotcha to circumvent export controls. This was PRC version of presumption of denial. Ultimately PRC gets to decide if Manus technology CREATED IN PRC is exportable, and under what conditions. PRC company in Singapore fine, using Singapore to transfer to US... not fine. The amount of signals Manus got was similarly clear. PRC writings were talking about art13 of PRC export controls being triggered long before sales. Manus did the retarded and illegal (treasonously) thing and decided to go through with sale and forced PRC hand, when due diligence meant you know, not. AKA Manus did a supermicro but more egregious.
America so friendly they have to export control PRC... prevent US talent from working in PRC semi amirite. Oh wait, turns out when it comes to national security / duo use tech both sides are wildly not business friendly and can play the same geopolitical game. This hasn't happened in America, because quite frankly US businesses are not retarded enough to flaunt US national security instruments due to US gov extraterritorial reach. Manus thought they can do so with PRC who has less extraterritorial = reach, and now PRC slapping them as example. Also no one's arrested yet, just exit ban for ongoing investigation. But would not be surprised if they do end up getting arrested, because they wildly, knowingly in the wrong.
The U.S. restrictions on Nvidia compute were clear and extremely widely reported on for years prior to Supermicro's sales. That's why Nvidia created special Chinese-market versions of their GPUs, e.g. the H800 and H20, which Supermicro was free to sell at the time (although eventually those were banned as well, which was similarly widely reported on and well known). The rest of your post is, similarly, basically nonsense.
You mean the widely reported and well known industry confusion around TPP revision and timeline of ban a800/h800, first 30 days then immediately i.e. it was moving goal posts / wiffle waffled and anything but extremely clear. US used presumption of denial to stop NVidia from selling A800 and H800 when US gov had no solid idea what TPP threshold to set, Nvidia had to wait months for BIS to specifically determine denial bucket for H20 (notification requirement). This directly analogous to Beijing hinting to Manus to hit the breaks for clarity... which you know Nvidia did in absence. Nvidia did not ILLEGALLY sell POTENTIALLY/UNDER EVALUATION export controlled goods, which Manus did. Nvidia HALTED ~3B in PRC orders and ate like ~5B inventory tax due to regulatory fog. If Nvidia sold, they would have done a supermicro, this comparison of Nvidia correct behavior vs supermicro and manus incorrect behavior, and you can bet your ass someone at Nvidia was going to get the supermicro/manus treatment.
Your grasp of subject matter and timeline is actually, complete nonsense.
Philip Agee
Dan Duggan
[flagged]
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.
THANK YOU, I knew I was overlooking a recent example in favor of historical ones!
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.
Of the course the USA does it. Obama was totally ruthless with such economic warfare, including on the US usual lackeys. See for instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci
While I don’t agree with your tone, and I’m sure an unbiased reading of history also wouldn’t agree with your tone…
Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia?
Anyone of those would be better than the US
> You're right.
You should have just left it at that.
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.
You have to be joking.
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.
> The media is almost daily full of China scares
That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?
> there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.
The Taiwanese? This is actually a perfect example of what I was saying.
Talking about 'Taiwan' and 'border disputes with the PRC' meanwhile the USA is doing a maritime blockade of Cuba and Iran. And that it's without talking about bombing countries or military deployed thousand of miles away from their borders, of God forbid, unconditional support to Israel, who just displaced one and a half million people.
But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Chinese are very bad?
Whataboutism. You said that only USA couldn't care for other countries' interests, so I showed China doing the same. To parody you:
"But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Americans are very bad?"
> That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?
Have you not been reading The Economist for the past 20 years of the WSJ since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch? They've been predicting the downlfall of China every other month.
Can you point to this month's article then so we have a sample?
Nah I prefer to discuss with people who have some basic literacy or googling skills because if you search for "economist predicting the fall of china" you'll find both their articles and the commentary surrounding it.
It ain't that hard!
I'm asking because I read regularly the Economist and don't feel that it's a true statement. For instance, the latest Chaguan column is quite balanced: https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-...
So yeah, if you have wold claims, you better back them with sources.
I also regularly keep up with The Economist and other western news outlets and I completely agree with GP's impression that we see a "China is doomed" opinion piece every other month. Same with geopolitical youtubers.
Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for what is common knowledge is just a silly way to shut down discussion instead of engaging with it
I asked for a single article representing this point of view. If it is so common, it should be easy to find? No?
Yes, you would have a very easy time finding one.
If you can't show any proof or even circumstantial evidence of your theory, it's worthless and the Economist is not a China-doomer paper.
The reality is that it's a lie and the Economist is quite balanced about China (even while they are banned from publishing there!). For instance, their latest cover was quite positive about the country: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/04/01/how-china-hopes...
Here bud
https://old.reddit.com/r/China/comments/yzol6h/
Those aren't from The Economist, the articles mentioned there are from Vox, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera.
Are y'all seriously still on this? Here you go. The top results from a google search
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/29/the-great-fall-...
^ they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA"
https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-chi...
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/11/03/t...
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/02/12/w...
FFS none of you actually read The Economist yet I'm the one who has to google for you.
Finally, some sources. At least we can analyze those.
The first, from 2015 (year of the 2015-2016 Chinese stock market turbulence), is an analysis of the response of the other countries to the aforementioned issue. With that context, its cover seems to be the usual attention grabbing shit other journals do, lest you want to conclude that the Economist also has a vendetta against USA for some of its covers.
The other articles simply show specific issues they noted: the second is about the effect of the trade war and how that will slow China but it'll be fine otherwise; the forth is repeating a concern of some authrorities, but it has no tone of "this will end China".
The third one is the closest, being about discrepanciea between the numbers reported by the top officials and the local governments. It mentions the possibility of being worse than it appears, but, at the end, it also posits whether it actually is given the lack of worry from party officials.
In all, doesn't seem that different from the average doomerism you see for other countries (including the US). They, to me, appear much more likely to be clickbaits than actual propaganda pieces.
Given the dates of these results, I suspect you specifically searched for the Economist saying anything negative about China's economy. If so, not exactly a good starting point for measuing bias. Now, to be fair, Google results can be different from user to user and you did at least post some actual the Economist links, in contrast to that bogus Reddit post you linked.
What's actually impressive is how you are baffled for doing the bare minimum. "That's common knowledge" is just a cheap excuse for ending discussions. But I'll elaborate on that on the other chain.
Now, for comparison, here are my 3 top results from searching "The Economist china" in Google:
1) https://www.economist.com/topics/china
2) https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-...
3) https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/29/...
So far, it just looks like the usual news media shenanigans.
They are also 10 years old.
That user always does this. They make bold claims then frantically google and fail to read their own links, and it’s always in favor of China or some communist dictatorship.
The burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.
If I were discussing a formal argument in debate club sure. I don't do googling for others when the first 10 results in google for this is either source articles from The Economist of a half dozen forum threads commenting the same thing for the past 5 years.
I asked you for a single article representing your claim, since it is so common it should be easy to find? It's as ridiculous as if I declare that the earth is flat, but provide no explanation since "you can google".
Imagine if you had to provide a source every time you claimed The Holocaust happened.
What a weird argument to make.
Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence
If by "common knowledge" you mean "previously agreed between the sides", sure. But that is not the case, evident by the reply thread.
If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
Buddy, they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" as the heading.
Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.
If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.
(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)
I have tackled the cover in another comment, so I'll skip it here.
You speak for others as if you are a representative for them. Somehow, it doesn't go through your mind that other people might have different readings and perspectives from articles or papers, and you default to accusing them of just not reading. A view that's possibly amplified by certain social bubbles. Evidence of that lies in your, basically gratuitous, accusation of sinophobia.
This ties to the "common knowledge" issue. Due to diversity, there is no such thing as objective "common knowledge", thus it is always subjective to social groups. Best case scenario, appeal to common knowledge is simply an intolerant way of uncritically asserting your biases onto others, who might not even belong to any of your social groups. Worst case scenario, it's used by bad actors to gaslight their way through a discussion.
Someone asked you to fetch the current month's article (not a study) to use as a sample. Instead of just quickly googling and linking it, allowing the conversation to go forward, you kept trying to dismiss and avoid doing your due dilligence. Only after many posts, you managed to post a analyzable sample. If that's not a waste of energy, I don't know what is.
If you genuinely believe this was a total waste of energy, you could've just left. If your arguments were solid, no further comments would take them down (that is, if you made actual arguments, not just claims before).
I'm not here to change your mind (specially given how you treat all your proof as "common knowledge", which indicates that is so enshrined in your perspective, that only a serious event can actually change), but to either: present a point or debunk bogus/baseless claims (primarily this one). Other people can read through our posts and reach their own conclusion.
Yes, of course, the perceived editorial line of the Economist is similar to the Holocaust. Also, it is quite easy to do in the later case, you can link the relevant wikipedia article.
Depends if we are in agreement. If we are, no. If we aren't and we want to have a sincere discussion, yes.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
>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.
> have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice
I wonder how that came about?
What’s that fence analogy called?
Chester-what?
I think people are frustrated with the firehose of whataboutism rather than disagreeing with you with the idea that things are not perfect.
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.
> The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell,
There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.
interesting. Manus is nominally a Singapore based company and should be immune to these actions. Tiktok argued that it was headquartered in Singapore with a Singaporean CEO. breaking singapore’s fig leaf might prove problematic in the long run.
The founders are Chinese citizens, and pressure was applied to the founders personally. Thus Singapore was given room to save face re: sovereignty.
> After a $75 million fundraising round led by U.S. venture firm Benchmark in May 2025, Manus shut its China offices in July, laying off dozens of employees. It then moved its operations to Singapore.
The company itself was based in mainland China less than 12 months ago.
Yeah if an American tech firm had been working in the US for 5 years and then tried to close all US offices down and move its IPs and tech to a different country so that it can sell out to Alibaba or Bytedance, I'm sure the US would react in the same exact way.
The sinophobia in this thread is ridiculous. Whether you agree or disagree with what China is doing, nothing is happening that wouldn't also happen in the US.
What sinophobia? I haven't seen anyone here talking shit about chinese indivuduals. Or are they trashing China (the nation-state)? If we count that as xenophobia, is any unjust criticism of USA "americanphobia"? If so, fine, but I'd rather not anthropomorphize megacorps with monopolies on violence.
You don't think it's possible that Japanophobia could fuel criticisms of Nintendo? Or that Russophobia could fuel criticisms against a Russian company?
You don't need to anthropomorphize anything.
One thing is to say that some of the comments may be motivated by xenophobia (could be true, but I'm no psychic, and you likely aren't either), another is to use the criticisms as proof of xenophobia.
Since you mentioned Nintendo, do you think the many criticisms(fair or otherwise) against Nintendo and their games are due to Japanophobia?
I think its fairly clear that, when talking bad about China, they are focusing on its goverment, not its people nor ethnicities.
interesting. US also blocked exports by a Dutch company to China.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR):
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.
what part of they are chinese citizens was hard for you to understand?
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).
Maybe it is about idealistic concepts like "ethnonationalism", but a pragmatic perspective is just that: someone with critical ties/stakes with PRC makes them vulnerable to PRC pressure (just look up PRC overseas police services, or the expanding reach of its National Security Law).
Tbh, its either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised that powers with stakes on an issue won't pressure to have outcomes lean in their interests. There are centuries of examples of this.
And? What strawman are you attacking? No one disputed that pragmatic concern. How did Cotton's viral line of questioning help clarify if or how the CEO was "vulnerable to PRC pressure"?
Should American CEOs who do business in China be subjected to the same lines of questioning re their citizenship? You think Americans who do business in China aren't influenced or "vulnerable to PRC pressure"? China is a huge market, one of (if not perhaps the most) desirable in the whole world. You think American companies don't behave to please the PRC when operating in China?
Tbh it is either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised at the idea that American citizens running international businesses are somehow immune to "PRC pressure" given the PRC is the government of one of the largest and most desirable markets in the entire world.
Tom Cotton's line of inquiry is embarrassing on all grounds. The fact you have to draw up a strawman to defend it says a lot. As with the claim of "ethnonationalism", if he had even a shred of concrete evidence re PRC pressure he could have brought it to bear and dispensed with the repetitive citizenship questionnaire.
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.
Wasn’t Llama a leak that got so popular meta decided to change their whole approach?
I was working at Google at the time. Before Llama, releasing weights was not even worth a discussion.
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.
I don't think it was much of a leak, there was no significant verification--I think .edu email approved automatically. It was probably just there because copyright law related to it was more uncertain then, but they had stronger fair use case with an academic/research gate on it.
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.
Did they though? That is the lore. You can’t really compare recommender system performance across different populations and products.
Unlike common benchmarks for LLMs.
Also Chinese companies are now single-handedly keeping the future of LLMs open-sourced. DeepSeek being the pinnacle of this. Not only do they publish weights and code, but they publish detailed papers detailing their approach
>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.
"Your families live here", maybe "We have shadow police stations across the world", the playbook is well established
I mean, they're just cribbing what America did, and what the British Empire did before that.
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.
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.
? The united states have blocked exports by a Dutch company to China, and somehow got away with it.
Okay!
* 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.
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.
Howard Zinn was a hero.
Also you can add middle east for last 20-30 years.
Complete disregard for human life for profit.
None of this is similar to what is happening here
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).
True, America just kills outside its borders (~37 million people since the 50s), so it's a lot safer!
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.
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.
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.
You find it reprehensible but can't _just_ say that, you have to justify it with "and also the Americans and British did it". Yeah right.
Why does that bother you tho? Not having the moral ground changes the argument?
It just makes it weird. When the US does something bad and people go "but CHINA!" it's also weird.
Because it's very obvious whataboutism.
Sure and what's the problem with that?
If you can't explain why country A doing X is bad but country B doing similar thing isn't it probably means you don't have a good argument.
There's a whole wikipedia article discussing how it is both a logical fallacy and how it is often used as a tool of propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Please don't engage in whataboutism. One should be able to criticize China's actions without calling into discussion actions of other nations.
Do you go about threads criticizing US govt actions drawing parallels to similar actions in other regimes like China or Russia?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Can you please stop with this style of commenting? This is not what HN is for – ideological battle, cross-examination, sneering/snark. The thing HN is for is curious conversation, and you'll be much more at home here if you can keep that in mind and make an effort to heed the guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think you're misreading my tone because the other poster was so opinionated. I didn't think being Chinese was insulting or something, but had expected a continuing discussion there.
And I think my prior response in the thread was rather highbrow and clever, referencing ancient history.
I'm really unfamiliar with this playbook and how America has used it. Do you have any examples? I can't seem to find any
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.
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.
So, who would you say that spend more resources 'controlling the international narrative', the USA or China?
I have no idea and for me it's not the central question.
I don't like it from any party, but from a moral standpoint, the more authoritarian someone is about their propaganda, the more invasive and violent it feels to me.
I perceive what the CCP is doing as denying my (and other people's) humanity and individual rights. I simply cannot accept a government that imprisons artists and human rights activists. A world where art is crime is not one I find worth living in.
I perceive American propaganda in the same category as advertising, harmful and annoying, but they won't lock me up or threaten my safety if I speak up against the propaganda. Well, at least that's how it used to be, who knows with the current trajectory.
China at least does it covertly. The US president broadcasts his madman narrative on Twitter for everyone to see.
Personally, I prefer the US approach. At least then everyone knows what they're dealing with and they can openly react instead of being forced into a fake dance between what is said and what is REALLY said.
The covert stuff gives some degree of plausible deniability and it causes a good amount of the population to be complacent and ignore reality. I don't see how this can be considered good for anyone but the people creating propaganda.
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?
I dunno, he claimed to have already done that a few months ago. I don't have any confidence at all that this is his real motivation.
that was before they started using automatic weapons against their own populace and taking down the internet. After that, they needed a double tap.
Ask Vietnam, Philippines and other SE Asian country if they feel China is adhering to “international norms” when it comes to the 9 dash line.
The… hands of fate?
Chinese government blocks stupid American from overpaying for Chinese technology thereby missing out on free taxable revenue....
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.
They wouldn't have to "invent a crime", circumventing state interests in strategic technology is likely already illegal.
> which is way easier for ethnic Chinese people than for other races
Nationals. The word you are looking for is nationals.
I am not. I am referring to the Chinese race. Their nationality could be Taiwanese or even Malaysian and the result is the same.
Then the word you're looking for is likely Han, Chinese is only a nationality, not an ethnicity.
I dug a little into this because I was curious who was more correct here.
From wikipedia, which links to what seems like a relatively reliable source:
> The Singapore Department of Statistics broadly defines "Chinese" as a "race" or "ethnic group", in conjunction with "Malay, Indian and Others" under the CMIO model.[10] They consist of "persons of Chinese origin" such as the Hokkiens, Teochews, Hainanese, Cantonese, Hakka, Henghuas, Hokchias/Foochows, Shanghainese and Northern Chinese, etc."[11]
So I would, on the balance of things, think that kccqzy meant what they said, and was pretty correct about it.
> 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.
Naive or not, plenty of investors believed that running a company out of Singapore would shield them from the aggressively un-free Chinese market controls. Manus is proving them wrong, which will hurt Chinese companies that try to run out of Singapore for access to Western capital markets.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
"Nobody reasonable"??
Well, reasonable people generally don't have a death wish. :P
Just look at the Jack Ma case https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/business/china-jack-ma-rumor-...
They kept him under house arrest for years and now he complies
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?
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.
> 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.
Finally some sense. I am quite confident that the US would be reacting the exact same way if the situation was flipped.
Can we finally acknowledge the obvious Singapore-washing that Chinese companies have been doing for years or are we going to keep pretending?
elaborate on the problem, for those of us that this is not obvious to?
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.
Yes but also no, being in the US is a meaningful exposure in a way that a Singapore HQ isn't
What leverage does China have here to enforce this? Meta doesn't do business in China. Can't they just give them the middle finger?
Meta absolutely does business in China. e.g. https://www.metacareers.com/v2/locations/shenzhen/?p[offices...
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.
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.
> 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-...
[flagged]
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/27/business/china-meta-manus...
What does "annulment" even mean once the deal has closed? The weights, IP, and engineers are already inside Meta. Beijing can force the founders to sign whatever they want, they're physically there, but you can't claw back code that's already been integrated. This is a signaling move. The real impact is on the next deal: any China-origin founder eyeing a Singapore or Delaware flip now has to price in "state summons you home" as a real risk. India had a softer version in 2022–23 when RBI rules pushed PhonePe, Groww, and Razorpay to reverse-flip back before IPO.What does "annulment" even mean once the deal has closed? The weights, IP, and engineers are already inside Meta. Beijing can force the founders to sign whatever they want, they're physically there, but you can't claw back code that's already been integrated. This is a signaling move. The real impact is on the next deal: any China-origin founder eyeing a Singapore or Delaware flip now has to price in "state summons you home" as a real risk. India had a softer version in 2022–23 when RBI rules pushed PhonePe, Groww, and Razorpay to reverse-flip back before IPO.
Funny that Manus already shows "by meta" along with the logo pretty prominently.
This is interesting. I wonder what inside information China could also be after that Manus might have after integrating with Meta.
Could be, but if that's how it worked out they would have rather let the acquisition be, to gather much more.
This will be awkward, given the acquisition is already complete
Dictatorships do what dictatorships do. China is a dictatorship. Don't be surprised. Stop doing business with dictatorships.
Should countries also stop doing business with the US? With the UK? Countries act the same way to preserve the interests, it's just that you agree with the Western narrative.
I think it is easy to argue that the Chinese govt exerts pressure in "unique ways" - see Jack Ma's 180 in attitude after house arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown
Is there one CEO in the US or UK with a similar story?
No, and that's exactly the problem. There should be plenty of CEOs facing direct consequences for their actions in "the west" too.
the manus founders moved the entire company, researchers, and IP out of china to singapore. most of the researchers and business is still there, but unfortunately the founders wives/parents and family stayed in china. ultimately this is why they had to come back when the PRC summoned them after the meta acquisition.
sad day to be a chinese founder.
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.
First time interacting with a totalitarian government?
[flagged]
1. Not SG founders
2. China already claims jurisdictional reach on anyone (chinese national or not) when their national interest is involved.
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.
Weird, why does China want GPUs then?
Also, regarding that "tit for tat", how large of a "tat" is due, regarding decades of corporate espionage?
Oh it's okay check what US did with the TikTok.
Corporate espionage isn't the only factor behind China's rise.
It is relentless hardwork.
>check what US did with the TikTok.
A specific case in which the US demanded a tiny fraction of what China does systematically, orders of magnitude worse. Okay. Didn't even take that into account to begin with but that's an even larger "tat" then I guess.
Do they pay you extra for the gratuitous glazing?
Deepseek v4 is still pretty far behind the frontier models though.
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.
China will succeed, despite china.
Manus is saved, 2 billion is such an undervaluation considering much worse companies like minimax is valued at 30 billion.
Manus is just a joke. MiniMax develops one of world's leading open source LLMs. You comparison is an insult to MiniMax.
No I think the best agent with hundreds of millions in ARR should be worth more than the 15th best model company with tiny revenue. ur the joke.
Who cares after openclaw ?
we all heard about manus, but who is actually using it?
This must sting really hard for the founders.
Almost a billionaire. Only 1 step left. Then, it's blocked by China.
Every time I see the word "Manus", I can't help but think of MST3000 making fun of "Manos: The Hands of Fate"
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...
That's not any more relevant than if I were to bring up the US' own concentration camps.
In August of 2024, the ACLU released a report on these camps called "Resistance, Retaliation, Repression: Two Years in California Immigration Detention".
Here's some of the issues it highlighted:
- forced labor in order to afford to eat. The $1/day "Voluntary Work Program" is the only way you're gonna get enough food to live. And if you refuse to work or try to protest, ICE doesn't have to give an excuse to send you into solitary confinement. CoreCivic sells this labor to companies
- extensive use of solitary confinement often for "minor disciplinary infractions or as a form of retaliation for participating in hunger strikes or for submitting complaints"
- dozens of documented deaths from forced labor and medical neglect
No doubt these issues have only gotten worse since the publication of this report.
https://www.aclunorcal.org/publications/resistance-retaliati...
The US holds 25% of the world's prison population. It is one of the few countries in the world where someone's voting rights can be taken away for being inprisoned. Prisoners also have to pay "rent" but don't have a way of making money. If they do ever get out, they're saddled in debt for the rest of their lives—increasing the chance they go right back in to this for-profit scheme
[dead]
[dead]
Poor Meta. AI is really just not working out for them.
The governments need to keep their noses away from private companies, unless private companies turn to directly, or indirectly, limit their own competition using nefarious practises.
Politicians need to be kept in check, or else, they become dictators. If not, then it's just a matter of when, not if, that that transition happens.
Yes, so the US need allow ASML sell to China.
Ideally, yes.
The thing is such actions from govt.'s usually start with the right intent and in a very limited scope... but, with time, both gets traded away for having more political control over entire ecosystem, thereby, allowing corruption to creep-in, and on a more extreme level, illegal arrests and account freezes.
The issue is always the human nature: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Didn’t the Dutch government take control of China-own chip maker as well?
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.
>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.
Somehow this is about the EU?
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.
Yes, this is about the rest of the world.
>If the EU had any backbone, it would cut off the US from ASML.
ASML depends on a lot of US technologies.