Yes, but that's the case for any company under any state. Do you believe that Apple is not under the US government's control just because they're allowed to criticize them?
Believe it or not, that's the case I was thinking of when I asked, "just because they're allowed to criticize them?" A multi-national corporation like Apple having the freedom to criticize the US government doesn't mean that it has freedom from control, given that it's a US company. If Apple had similar criticisms during a much more critical moment (e.g., a war) or wanted to commit a critical act (e.g., transfer their chip design to be done primarily in China), they could very well find themselves subject to a clause in some vague, national security or espionage act.
Jack Ma was criticizing China's strategy for minimizing risk in its financial system, essentially arguing for more risk that could harm ordinary people to benefit his company, Ant Group. Unlike the US, much of the financial sector in China is state-owned, so it makes sense that they would follow the state's line. The worst that happened to him is that he had to step away from roles in his companies and stay out of public image, which is very different to the image of being disappeared.
Both of their companies are under their respective state's control. The only difference seems to be what you're willing to recognize as control, since I'm much more interested in what happens when push comes to shove.
They didn't win, the phone was broken into with the help of a third party (so ultimately Apple actually did give the government a backdoor, unofficially) so the court case was mooted. Apple never actually defied the US legal system.
> Now ask Jack Ma
Ask ABC about their FCC license when they publish speech critical of the regime[1].
Apple can still fight against US government if they want. We are taking the example of the largest company in america tho so ofc they might want to take favour from govt so if govt requests them they will do something
But this is because they are an extremely large company but on the other hand, there can be smaller companies in america who can actually be independent yet the same just isn't possible in china.
Also even with things like apple, they don't really unlock computers for the govt.
So in a way, yeah. Not sure about the current oligarchy / kiss-the-ring type of deal they might have but that seems a problem of america's authoritarianism and not the fault of the democratic model itself
Workaccount2|2 months ago
Now ask Jack Ma about the time he even criticized regulations, much less defied them...
KlayLay|2 months ago
Jack Ma was criticizing China's strategy for minimizing risk in its financial system, essentially arguing for more risk that could harm ordinary people to benefit his company, Ant Group. Unlike the US, much of the financial sector in China is state-owned, so it makes sense that they would follow the state's line. The worst that happened to him is that he had to step away from roles in his companies and stay out of public image, which is very different to the image of being disappeared.
Both of their companies are under their respective state's control. The only difference seems to be what you're willing to recognize as control, since I'm much more interested in what happens when push comes to shove.
mullingitover|2 months ago
They didn't win, the phone was broken into with the help of a third party (so ultimately Apple actually did give the government a backdoor, unofficially) so the court case was mooted. Apple never actually defied the US legal system.
> Now ask Jack Ma
Ask ABC about their FCC license when they publish speech critical of the regime[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Liv...!
Imustaskforhelp|2 months ago
But this is because they are an extremely large company but on the other hand, there can be smaller companies in america who can actually be independent yet the same just isn't possible in china.
Also even with things like apple, they don't really unlock computers for the govt.
https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/
So in a way, yeah. Not sure about the current oligarchy / kiss-the-ring type of deal they might have but that seems a problem of america's authoritarianism and not the fault of the democratic model itself