← Back to context

Comment by theultdev

4 days ago

Really skipped over expanding on the CCP laws that Google chose not follow, didn't ya?

What's the relevance? Would you have been more satisfied if Google were forced to sell to Jack Ma instead?

  • Would you have been more satisfied if the US government forced a backdoor to TikTok? That's why Google pulled out of China.

    The US is doing the opposite, it's removing TikTok because they probably spy / psyop for the CCP.

    One country (China) was trying to force foreign companies to spy / psyop.

    One country (US) is making sure a foreign adversary doesn't use it to spy / psyop.

    • > Would you have been more satisfied if the US government forced a backdoor to TikTok? That's why Google pulled out of China.

      What a dope. Imagine being dumb enough to believe google pulled out to protect chinese people's privacy.

      Google pulled out because the chinese government wanted to monitor it to make sure google wasn't acting as a state actor pushing propaganda to destabilize nations. Turns out the chinese were right and google was indeed a state actor. Their dirty little fingers were all over the color revolutions.

      > One country (China) was trying to force foreign companies to spy / psyop.

      But that's google's business model. Do you have two brain cells to rub together? Why would the chinese force google to do what it already was doing in china and everywhere in the world? And still does today?

      > One country (US) is making sure a foreign adversary doesn't use it to spy / psyop.

      That's what china was doing. Dummy. Literally, china created laws to stop google/facebook/etc from running psyops in china and that's why they chose to leave china.

      You must be one of the morons that actually swallowed google's motto "Don't be evil" hook line and sinker.

      How stupid do you have to be to think google left china because the chinese government forced them to spy on the chinese. When spying is google's bread and butter.

      1 reply →

    • Yes, because it would at least show a modicum of honesty. Instead it's being done indirectly through putting a company in the hands of state-sanctioned owners. What difference does it make other than theater?

      1 reply →