The CCP has their own censored version of the texts and you can only get them through official channels. They call it a "comprehensive evaluation of the existing religious classics aiming at contents which do not conform to the progress of the times". Holy shit.
This sounds like a logical end result for the western world as well now that a large portion of our media is presented to us through streaming services that can easily, for instance, swap out a movie with a censored one, or remove more controversial material entirely
Is there a place where American companies draw the line? Or is there one?
For example, if China demanded Apple hand over information on which all iPhone users have <x> religious app installed so it can profile or do worse things to that group, would Apple just oblige?
And whereas America’s political apparatus might have stopped Apple from doing that in the past, now they don’t care either since they also have equity in Apple and are counting on Apple to avoid any disruption to their business with China (whether manufacturing, direct sales, or any piece of the supply chain)?
> For example, if China demanded Apple hand over information on which all iPhone users have <x> religious app installed so it can profile or do worse things to that group, would Apple just oblige?
iCloud data for Chinese is now stored on Chinese servers, after famously not being stored there.
Apple has a financial incentive to comply. The Chinese market is so huge. Most american companies would do anything to gain access to a market like that. When you do business in China, if the CCP says jump, you jump or prepare to forefit every single asset you have in that country. Full stop.
Aren't they simply legally bound? If they can do it (technically), and they are to do it (legally), how can they oppose doing it.
In fact, I have never understood the concept of "informational activity in the territory": I could not conceive that a server in Morocco, accessible to those in Nauru, should obey the legislation of Nauru. If two people on the Indian-Pakistani border shout at each other, the legislation of what is said from the left side should be that of the left side, where the actor (more accurately 'reactor') is - I would say.
If an entity is subject to the legislation of some country it must be because the entity must have a presence in that country that makes it a legal subject, probably a distinct branch.
About being legally bound, location and choices: I only just read that a few days ago LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) decided to "leave China", apparently as they could not further cope with the demands of the local administration.
> adhering to Chinese government regulations for [the] localized version of LinkedIn in China [For members whose profile visibility is limited within China, their profiles are still visible across the rest of the globe where LinkedIn is available]
indicating that the local legislation is (was) applied to a «localized version» of the system. These (surely to be better defined) must be the implementations bound to local legislation.
11 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 32.2 ms ] threadPre-existing laws were enforced.
For example, if China demanded Apple hand over information on which all iPhone users have <x> religious app installed so it can profile or do worse things to that group, would Apple just oblige?
And whereas America’s political apparatus might have stopped Apple from doing that in the past, now they don’t care either since they also have equity in Apple and are counting on Apple to avoid any disruption to their business with China (whether manufacturing, direct sales, or any piece of the supply chain)?
iCloud data for Chinese is now stored on Chinese servers, after famously not being stored there.
Yeah, if it loses money or harms profit, that crosses the line.
In fact, I have never understood the concept of "informational activity in the territory": I could not conceive that a server in Morocco, accessible to those in Nauru, should obey the legislation of Nauru. If two people on the Indian-Pakistani border shout at each other, the legislation of what is said from the left side should be that of the left side, where the actor (more accurately 'reactor') is - I would say.
If an entity is subject to the legislation of some country it must be because the entity must have a presence in that country that makes it a legal subject, probably a distinct branch.
Discussion at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28864394 ; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28865922
On Axios ( https://www.axios.com/linkedin-unanswered-questions-china-ce... ), the formula appears:
> adhering to Chinese government regulations for [the] localized version of LinkedIn in China [For members whose profile visibility is limited within China, their profiles are still visible across the rest of the globe where LinkedIn is available]
indicating that the local legislation is (was) applied to a «localized version» of the system. These (surely to be better defined) must be the implementations bound to local legislation.