Miscellaneous News

solarz

solarz

Brigadier
4Runner said:
You listed a few historical considerations and current benefits. In a few posts here in the last few weeks on GFW, I already said that it served some purposes. I have never said or argued it was not useful or important or insightful. So just to clarify the context.

What I have been saying, actually since the Covid breakout, is that China today is no longer the China during the formative years of the Internet revolution. China today is already ahead of US in some aspects of the Internet eco-system. So early benefits and low hanging fruits have already been harvested. But those downside effects are still there, since the day one. In other words, the cost-benefit calculation has been altered significantly, in comparison to those formative years.

Just to clarify:
(1) Would Alibaba have become what it is today without GFW? No.
(2) Would Tencent have become what it is today without GFW? No.
(3) Would ByteDance have become so big so quickly without GFW? No.

My arguments here were in the context of the entire Internet eco-system from about 2000 to this date. During that time, opposite to the benefits sides, there are new bureaucracies and entrenched interests developed within the Chinese Internet eco-system who are against any opening, not for the original gov purposes, but just to protect their own interests that 20 years of GFW has brought to them. I say all these because I know at a personal level, not propaganda craps or idealogical leanings, about China Internet eco-system.

I hope I can clarify a little here. And I am not interested in any pissing contest, especially not against to those who really don't know the Chinese Internet eco-system. And as I said earlier to another poster, this is indeed literally a trillion dollar topic inside China. So go figure...
Click to expand...

While I mostly agree with what you are saying here, I would caution against assuming that the interests of Chinese corporations are also beneficial to the Chinese nation and people.

Consider Tiktok, undoubtedly the most internationally successful Chinese tech product. By separating Tiktok from Douyin, ByteDance was able to grow outside the GFW. However, was that to the benefit of the Chinese people? Look at how quickly it folded under US pressure. All ByteDance accomplished was to effectively hand over trade secrets to a hostile foreign power.

It's easy to dismiss opposition to opening up as entrenched bureaucracy, but we've seen from the 90s the cost of opening up too quickly.

That said, I think this topic is not even the real issue. Behind this facade of arguing about the merits of the GFW lies a more fundamental (and sinister) question: who should be writing the laws: the government or the corporations?
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ZeEa5KPul said:
An excellent post overall except for this. I don't think it's debatable at all that the GFW should remain for the indefinite future. What's hindering Chinese web-tech overseas expansion isn't the GFW, it's the incumbent American players. America has an entrenched first mover advantage that will be nigh impossible to overcome unless America itself is cut down to size first.
Click to expand...

It is hindering them though. The most visible example of this is WeChat. Their payment system has to be tied to Chinese financial institutions, making it impossible for people who don't have a Chinese bank account to use it.

Remember that the GFW is first and foremost a legal framework.
 
S

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
solarz said:
While I mostly agree with what you are saying here, I would caution against assuming that the interests of Chinese corporations are also beneficial to the Chinese nation and people.

Consider Tiktok, undoubtedly the most internationally successful Chinese tech product. By separating Tiktok from Douyin, ByteDance was able to grow outside the GFW. However, was that to the benefit of the Chinese people? Look at how quickly it folded under US pressure. All ByteDance accomplished was to effectively hand over trade secrets to a hostile foreign power.

It's easy to dismiss opposition to opening up as entrenched bureaucracy, but we've seen from the 90s the cost of opening up too quickly.

That said, I think this topic is not even the real issue. Behind this facade of arguing about the merits of the GFW lies a more fundamental (and sinister) question: who should be writing the laws: the government or the corporations?
Click to expand...
I did not go back all the way to see where the discussion started. But I think you guys might have forgotten one important special interest group: the web censors and the PR departments in CPC.

Without the GFW or some equivalent replacement, their jobs will be a lot harder. And I do not want to speculate whether there are money changing hands between this SIG and the internet tycoons.

I think mods should consider moving this discussion to a more relevant thread, perhaps China Economy or China Science and Technology. It is a good discussion worth saving.
 
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
solarz said:
It is hindering them though. The most visible example of this is WeChat. Their payment system has to be tied to Chinese financial institutions, making it impossible for people who don't have a Chinese bank account to use it.

Remember that the GFW is first and foremost a legal framework.
Click to expand...
I agree with the statement that it's hindering them to an extent, however I think the GFW should still remain for at least the next 15-20 years. Linking WeChat's payment systems to foreign banks would blast a galaxy-sized hole through China's capital controls. I'd love it if policies like the GFW and the closed capital account were redundant, but unfortunately they're still very necessary and will remain so over the time horizon I previously specified.

Kneecapping Ant Financial had nothing to do with the GFW per se, but it illustrates the Chinese government's (correct in my view) focus on stability. As Xi once put it, China's economy is big but not yet strong. China's economy has a lot of the catch-up development still to undergo to gain the strength necessary to move past these protectionist policies.
 
4Runner

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
While I mostly agree with what you are saying here, I would caution against assuming that the interests of Chinese corporations are also beneficial to the Chinese nation and people.

Consider Tiktok, undoubtedly the most internationally successful Chinese tech product. By separating Tiktok from Douyin, ByteDance was able to grow outside the GFW. However, was that to the benefit of the Chinese people? Look at how quickly it folded under US pressure. All ByteDance accomplished was to effectively hand over trade secrets to a hostile foreign power.

It's easy to dismiss opposition to opening up as entrenched bureaucracy, but we've seen from the 90s the cost of opening up too quickly.

That said, I think this topic is not even the real issue. Behind this facade of arguing about the merits of the GFW lies a more fundamental (and sinister) question: who should be writing the laws: the government or the corporations?
Click to expand...
At least I know now that 金政委 is on my side.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ZeEa5KPul said:
I agree with the statement that it's hindering them to an extent, however I think the GFW should still remain for at least the next 15-20 years. Linking WeChat's payment systems to foreign banks would blast a galaxy-sized hole through China's capital controls. I'd love it if policies like the GFW and the closed capital account were redundant, but unfortunately they're still very necessary and will remain so over the time horizon I previously specified.

Kneecapping Ant Financial had nothing to do with the GFW per se, but it illustrates the Chinese government's (correct in my view) focus on stability. As Xi once put it, China's economy is big but not yet strong. China's economy has a lot of the catch-up development still to undergo to gain the strength necessary to move past these protectionist policies.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all saying GFW needs to be removed, just stating the fact that it is hindering the international expansion of Chinese tech companies. Whether or not that is in the interests of the Chinese nation is a matter for debate.

Personally, I think not only is the GFW always going to be around in one form or another, I believe other nations will start building their own national firewalls. The days of the free internet is over, and nations would be wise to stake their internet sovereignty quickly.

The real strategic question is, as you pointed out, how do we cut the American dominance down to size?
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
Don't look like the US can get anything from India until the EU stops buying Russian oil first.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Biden to Modi: Buying more Russian oil is not in India's interest​

India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, at a news conference later on Monday, pushed back against a question on India's energy purchases from Russia, saying the focus should be on Europe, not India. "Probably our total purchases for the month would be less than what Europe does in an afternoon."
 
S

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
I agree with the statement that it's hindering them to an extent, however I think the GFW should still remain for at least the next 15-20 years. Linking WeChat's payment systems to foreign banks would blast a galaxy-sized hole through China's capital controls. I'd love it if policies like the GFW and the closed capital account were redundant, but unfortunately they're still very necessary and will remain so over the time horizon I previously specified.
Click to expand...
I doubt that GWF can catch WeChat, or any software, doing such things with blocking the foreign banks completely.

Unless the Chinese government forces all Chinese netizens to use government issued digital certificates in TLS encryption, GFW cannot intercept encrypted connections (aka man-in-the-middle attacks).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top