Commodities, large number of buyers and a large number of sellers all buying/selling an equivalent product.

No buyer has power to set prices and no seller does either.

> and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other

Not really. Everyone was extending courtesies to China, but China opted to unilaterally reject the notion thay others could receive the same benefits they were enjoying. Now you're seeing this sort of courtesies being pulled for the first time. And you opt to frame this as hipocricy?

No one is clean in this. Now, the thing is that China did not allowed all companies in and after 10-20 years said: yeah, now you need a local partner. It was like this from the beginning (and it is not the only country in the world that required this, to have a local partner with 49 or 51 percent stake in the company). So all the companies that rushed into China were aware from day one that they need to share technology and know-how with the Chinese.

I think the question is: did China ever took over a foreign company because "national security" or whatever perceived risk?

The West is relatively clean at least in this; they had fair and open terms for China which were not reciprocated.

Even those 'local partnerships' in China were not above board - they existed to steal the intellectual property from the partnered Western company.

It seems the only thing that can be nailed down are 'consumer brands' which are difficult to duplicate.

[1] https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241

At least in the context of trade over the last 35 years, there has been an imbalance.

As for 'Arbitrary Rules' - it's a fair claim and the US, EU etc. need to establish clear and fair terms. So should China, India, Brazil, everywhere else.

For some reason I read "edible games" and was super duper curious...

It took until reading your comment for me to realize I was misreading it as well

Was just about to write this. Glad I'm not alone.

I was also confused for the same reason! And hungry.

> In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk.

Are you sure you really work at AWS? Dude, how often do you realize the documentation is not sufficient and you have to dig through people's brain to actually get the nuances, that is, lucky enough they are still around? lolll

Oh this post...calling out DeepSeek's T&C but not comparing it with OpenAI's is really disingenuous IMO.

Seen the same with censorship. Deepseek is a CCP pamphlet apparently, but rarely is it compared to OpenAI in the same breath.

There's a thing called "local laws and regulations" that you need to comply with to be able to operate in China. It's plain and simple - without this level of limitation, once the model is viral it will be on the radar and then censorship will apply anyway. May as well implement that from the beginning. So I don't believe CCP is actively "involved" in this, but rather the laws impacted the behavior of the company.

Microsoft apply censorship to Bing search results in China. It doesn't mean they are controlled by CCP. They just got impacted by law and they want to keep operate in China.

The question is whether the weights they've released have such censorship in the training data, for which future users would be unable to detect nor remove.

I don't care that deepseek's own service has censorship. I would care, if they have this censored weights but haven't revealed it was (aka, fraud by omission).

I would not be super surprised if they intend to do, but I felt that's going to be very hard to implement. The censorship very likely comes from another layer.

| meet the interests of the majority of people

I wonder how do you know "the interests of the majority of people" is to ban Tiktok...

Don't you know, China is the new enemy of the US. That's what the elites in the US have decided and that is enough to be considered as the will of the people.

That's not what I said, I said that the interests of the majority do not align with the interests of the Chinese government. That seems self evident to me but YMMV

Back in the early stage of social media, US companies had the choice to operate in China as long as they comply with the censorship and local laws. Had they chosen not to quit China market at the point, they would have been probably huge in China holding major access over Chinese users too. (How would Chinese government react to that is something we never get to see now...)

I keep seeing argument regarding "China bans social medias from other countries". It's not an outright ban saying that "Facebook cannot operate in China", but more like "Comply with the censorship rules or you cannot operate in China". It's not targeting "ownership" or "nation states". e.g. Google chose to leave, while Microsoft continues to operate Bing in China.

Good point, but still that's not reciprocity. Allowing the CCP to fine tune their propaganda at American citizens while US companies have to comply with heavy handed censorship is not a fair trade.

| I have faith that UW leadership will make it right in the end.

Please do not plan based on anyone's goodwill only, especially in this one you have such a high stake. I'd at least consult a lawyer at this point, even if it means you don't take any legal action.