[KlayLay]

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.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> 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.

I can agree with your whole comment except for the fact that we are comparing an if / future statement when push comes to shove for america since although one can predict about national security or espionage act or anything, Nobody can be 100% certain if apple would have to have follow it

Now compare this with China where states own the financial sector and have a share in every company so there is a 100% certainty there that when push comes to shove that china is a more likelier culprit than america

I feel like everything breaks down when push comes to shove though because I feel like Europe which has its flaws is still more stable (most parts of it) in terms of blatant corruption and authoritarianism than the trends displayed by america right now but if push comes to shove, I feel like Europe could have harsher rules than maybe even America considering America's "freedom" sentiment

The question however which I wish to ask is that what are some countries which you think are good if push comes to shove. I suppose switzerland but its gotten too good of a reputation that its become infamous for bad stuff but I am interested what other countries would you list.

[KlayLay]

I wouldn't consider any country in particular to be 'good if push comes to shove,' given that most exist to promote an environment where companies can easily make money. If a state feels like its status may be in jeopardy, it'll do whatever it can to maintain that relationship (e.g., the Dutch government seizing control of Nexperia from its Chinese parent company Wingtech). Consequently, it really doesn't matter whether push comes to shove for the US, China, Europe, etc. since the actions taken will stem from the same root (e.g., the US won't let Intel go bankrupt).

This is part of why I really don't think authoritarianism is relevant to whether or not China will lead in AI. There are much better metrics for this, like the amount of resources poured into research vs. applications, or the kind of research being done (open source, more than just LLMs etc.).

[Workaccount2]

If Trump tells Apple to put his face on everyone's lock screen, Apple laughs and says no. Trump can push but the courts will shoot it down.

If Xi tells Xiaomi to put his face one every xiaomi phone, tomorrow everyone with a xiaomi phone wakes up to Xi.

China is an authoritarian regime, through and through.

America is an authoritarian regime if you just read reddit comments all day.

[KlayLay]

The question is whether or not American companies like Apple are controlled by the US government. Do you genuinely believe that, just because you can go to a court, that you're somehow free of control? Whether or not the state is authoritarian doesn't change that.

You must really have a distorted view on society to believe that companies can be free from their respective governments on the basis of freedom of speech, which is largely a western concept.