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.
> 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
Barring people from leaving the country is sure some form of export control!
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
> 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
Barring people from leaving the country is sure some form of export control!
Down with the CCP!
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?
6 replies →
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.
3 replies →
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.
1 reply →
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).
[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.
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.
3 replies →
> 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 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.
The co-founders have roots in China. As such it's already a done deal that China will get its way.
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.
63 replies →
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.
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.
9 replies →
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.
2 replies →
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.
41 replies →
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.
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.
1 reply →
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?
7 replies →
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.
1 reply →
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
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.
6 replies →
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.
24 replies →
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.
Chinese government blocks stupid American from overpaying for Chinese technology thereby missing out on free taxable revenue....
The… hands of fate?
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?
1 reply →
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 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.
> 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.
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.
5 replies →
> 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.
1 reply →
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.
3 replies →
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?
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.
2 replies →
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/27/business/china-meta-manus...
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
we all heard about manus, but who is actually using it?
China will succeed, despite china.
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.
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.
This must sting really hard for the founders.
Almost a billionaire. Only 1 step left. Then, it's blocked by China.
Who cares after openclaw ?
Manus is saved, 2 billion is such an undervaluation considering much worse companies like minimax is valued at 30 billion.
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?
“Wouldn’t it be a shame if your family’s organs were harvested?”
That is the leverage that China has.
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.
1 reply →
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]
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.
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)
1 reply →
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.
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.