China Vows to Centralize Tech Development Under Communist Party
China Vows to Centralize Tech Development Under Communist Party
China’s ruling Communist Party will play a bigger role in steering its vast technology industry, the latest sign that Beijing intends to exert more influence over swathes of the world’s No. 2 economy.
Archive of the full article.
This is rational from China's perspective. Divesting in the American technology pipeline not only weakens America's grip on the global economy but also positions China as the leader in global technology.
Also, we have more evidence of US putting back doors into technology than we do China. If you're living in the imperial core, it's far more likely that the US is monitoring your activities than China is.
If there's anything to retain concern for it's Chinese companies sharing data with the US gov. On the plus side, that will probably decrease as the US tries to isolate (read: undermine and create a cold war against) China.
Nothing makes that more clear than how quickly the US dropped their bullshit accusations of DikDok once it was under their control.
Looking forward to my purchase going towards R&D for new tech and not just some CEO's coke/CSAM addiction.
Freedom dies when your tech purchase doesn't fund trips to epstein Island
-pro capitalists completely unironically
Thanks I needed that one 😄
There is so much potential for efficiencies if the state can subsidize and guide software development. It should really be treated as public infrastructure to be efficiently managed for the public good rather than a means for private monopolies to siphon as much rent as possible.
I think we can expect to see a future where a lot of Chinese computing is done on RISC-V. They will not have any need for American technology companies, b/c we don't do the manufacturing anyway. We just have the IP for entrenched technology. Americans were too short-sighted with all that trade war, Nvidia GPUs, and Huawei stuff. Why wouldn't your biggest trading partner take that as a warning sign that they must foster their own tech sector?
Also, when you can truly plan for longer terms than fiscal quarters or, if you're being really ambitious, fiscal years then I don't see how you can't just eventually dominate the sector.
An iron fist is certainly one way to encourage creative thinking.
You gotta get a bit creative when fisting.
Not that you could before, but I wouldn’t trust any chips, hardware, software, anything made from there from a security stand point anymore.
Which will further stifle innovation, just like every other time it's been attempted.
Thanks China!
Which is why WW2 led to no innovation and why NASA did nothing new, right?
Name one major new innovation of the past 50 years that didn't rely substantially on government funding? NASA alone is responsible for most of the technologies in your cell phone, except for the touch screen which was funded by the Smithsonian.
I'll even tie one arm behind my back and we can ignore indirect things like public schooling or military conquest for resources like oil.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely right. The government can and should participate in STEM industries, sure, but trying to make innovation a government sector is just going to end badly.
Edit: Ohhh, I get it: tankies don't care about facts. Daddy China's boots aren't polished enough, better lick 'em some more. You'll have to find time to fit it in between gobbling Putin's balls though. Blocks for everyone!
There's that classic homophobia, always juuuust below the surface, all it takes is a little scratch for it all to come flowing out 😌
I'm not downvoting you because your score being "7/11" is hilarious to me, and is only two upvotes off another very funny set of numbers.
EDIT: Nooooooo!
I gotta love that even US hegemony is challenged on Lemmy, here not even Western superiority is a given which is at least something the vast majority on Reddit can agree on.
That said nuanced discussions seem impossible still, it's less a balanced mix where every spot on the scale is represented and more a fairly even balance of two extremes.
My current theory is that the majority of actual moderates (not US politics moderates) between two extremes just aren't interested in the debate, whereas the extremes very much are. I do gotta say that I too generally want to weigh in on things I either agree on completely or things I vehemently oppose, so I guess that kinda helps me understand how and why this is... But it makes everything seem like the extremes are the only two choices, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Lemmy is way better because unlike Reddit they don't really censor stuff unless for a good reason, and because the modlog is public it becomes very easy to see when they are which makes it even more of a disincentive not to remove stuff just because it's distasteful. And unlike other platforms which build themselves on being "free speech" are willing to have basic standards of quality like "lets not become a hub of CSAM, neo-nazism, and crypto scams" allowing that shit not only stifles actual free speech but also drives people away in droves.
You have to understand that moderate positions or centrist positions are compromised positions. That means that you start with a position you have, then someone takes up a different position and then you change your position based on the relative location of their position. That's not a great way to go about arriving at positions. In fact, it's a guaranteed way to never actually get anywhere because your opponents merely need to go more extremely in one direction and you'll just get dragged along.
What you think of as extremists on the side of communism are people with positions that have literally been around for over a century and have been based in an adherence to scientifically analyzing human society to arrive at their positions. Does that make them extreme? Would you say the same thing about climate scientists? Do you think it's extremist to hold firm to positions that have been well and thoroughly analyzed and arrived at through rigorous study and debate?
That was the literal dumbest shit I've ever read in regards to your first paragraph. I don't think any moderate or centrist describes their political leanings as "smack dab in the middle between X and Y". I for one certainly don't. But I'm centrist in that I hold viewpoints along the spectrum to both sides some for sure in the extreme ends on some matters, like for instance criminal justice.
Second paragraph you believe that I'm talking in general terms. I'm not dismissing Communism (and whatever we'd define as the opposite extreme) as extreme, I'm saying inside the spectrum of people considering themselves communists there are extreme opinions such as the USSR was a utopia. Or that Mao Zedong was a great leader. Non extreme takes there would be "The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we've seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality". For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.
As for climate scientists the extreme take / opinion I often see is that the world is overpopulated and we need a drastic reduction, which is hardly what climate scientists propose but people read in all the time. That and eco terrorism.
Further we don't have a perfect theory of civilization in terms of how to optimally structure society to maximize life quality for everyone. And even if we did there is no guarantee we could get literally everybody onboard. This is where politics come in and surprise surprise but there is no perfect solution to be had. Only the one we can agree on collectively or the one we can force through by virtue of the power we hold. And any agreement in a group larger than one is going to be a compromise and we need to be much better at trying to reach those. And not entrench ourselves in positions from which we cannot move without conflict of identity or morals. I.e. we can't tie our political positions so tightly with neither identity nor morals such that we cannot reach a compromise to move further towards our desired state, if not directly towards it but diagonally.
what are you trying to say?
Not every observation has to result in a conclusion.
In other words- their entire tech industry was built on by industrial espionage and corporate theft. Now they decide to finally wrangle it in. Thanks CCP.
their entire tech industry was built on by industrial espionage and corporate theft
We need more of that. Fuck megacorps and their IPs. Hell, even the US completely disregarded br*tish IP laws when it was industrializing, and African countries will do too when they industrialize.
Agree that IP laws are shit for developing a country & its people.
You've come to the right site; we're all pro-piracy and anti walled gardens here.
Reasonable IP laws are conceptually a good thing. Unfortunately, America is incapable of implementing reasonable laws about anything. Between rampant authoritarianism and legalized bribery, American IP laws only favor large corporate interests.
their entire tech industry was built on by industrial espionage and corporate theft
basedbasedbasedbasedbasedbasedbasedbased
wrangle it in?