It’s a very recent development and such a change takes time. And of course the company behind the app is welcoming to new users, because it means growth, even when it comes with new headaches towards moderation and pressure from government.
The company not scrambling to make the experience good for foreigners would be leaving money on the table. And no corporation wants to do that. But it’s not up to just them.
Obviously the Chinese government is a big thing and I’m sure there’s a lot of different opinions, but at least the foreign ministry has released official statements speaking positively of the exchanges.
If the foreign ministry was planning to split the userbase, they would be warning about malicious foreign influence, like the US did before they banned tiktok.
And why would they ever want do that? It’s a much better move to be all “this is great” and then quietly act to separate them. That way it looks good inside and outside and it won’t hurt the app. And they wouldn’t want to hurt the app, unlike the US who wanted to hurt TikTok.
It’s a much better move to be all “this is great” and then quietly act to separate them
If they say “this is great” and then separate them, they look like hypocrites.
If they say “beware the evil foreign influence” and then act, then people will presume that the evil foreigners were doing bad things, as half of lemmy is doing with the tiktok ban.
If they say “this is great” and then separate them, they look like hypocrites.
Governments do that all the time and a lot of people just don’t care. Censorship can rile people up much more than just being hypocrites.
Quietly is kinda the operative word. Publicly say one thing, then quietly do another when the interest dies down. People will notice but not nearly as many will care or even hear about it if you do it slowly and quietly.
If they say “beware the evil foreign influence” and then act, then people will presume that the evil foreigners were doing bad things
I don’t think Chinese are that stupid, they’ll know it was just another censorship move from their government. But it saying that will paint them and the app in a really bad light and there’s really no reason to do that. You want foreigners to use it, you want them to think you’re happy to be open and all. Then you just do differently. Because not as many people will know or care.
So no evidence will change your mind that China is planning to stop their citizens from interacting with foreigners. And if you never see any evidence they did, it’s because they secretly did.
I am reminded of the Parenti quote from Blackshirts and Reds:
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
Except they’re not cordoning us off, they’re doing the opposite by adding built-in translation functions.
It’s a very recent development and such a change takes time. And of course the company behind the app is welcoming to new users, because it means growth, even when it comes with new headaches towards moderation and pressure from government.
The company not scrambling to make the experience good for foreigners would be leaving money on the table. And no corporation wants to do that. But it’s not up to just them.
Obviously the Chinese government is a big thing and I’m sure there’s a lot of different opinions, but at least the foreign ministry has released official statements speaking positively of the exchanges.
Are we really going to take word from foreign ministries in earnest?
If the foreign ministry was planning to split the userbase, they would be warning about malicious foreign influence, like the US did before they banned tiktok.
And why would they ever want do that? It’s a much better move to be all “this is great” and then quietly act to separate them. That way it looks good inside and outside and it won’t hurt the app. And they wouldn’t want to hurt the app, unlike the US who wanted to hurt TikTok.
If they say “this is great” and then separate them, they look like hypocrites.
If they say “beware the evil foreign influence” and then act, then people will presume that the evil foreigners were doing bad things, as half of lemmy is doing with the tiktok ban.
Governments do that all the time and a lot of people just don’t care. Censorship can rile people up much more than just being hypocrites.
Quietly is kinda the operative word. Publicly say one thing, then quietly do another when the interest dies down. People will notice but not nearly as many will care or even hear about it if you do it slowly and quietly.
I don’t think Chinese are that stupid, they’ll know it was just another censorship move from their government. But it saying that will paint them and the app in a really bad light and there’s really no reason to do that. You want foreigners to use it, you want them to think you’re happy to be open and all. Then you just do differently. Because not as many people will know or care.
So no evidence will change your mind that China is planning to stop their citizens from interacting with foreigners. And if you never see any evidence they did, it’s because they secretly did.
I am reminded of the Parenti quote from Blackshirts and Reds:
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”