You're not going to get rid of espionage. NSA has been doing this for years. The ban is purely a battle for who has more power and control. In the end, the user loses no matter what. Someone will be watching.
Of course espionage will continue and international rivals will resort to dirty tactics, this is a given. The only question is whose side you're on. I am surprised when US citizens or people of nations aligned with the US are critical of the US defending itself against foreign espionage.
Shoring up the US economy is in everyone's interest up to a certain point ofcourse everyone is exposed to US debt- but when the US starts imposing tariffs to keep out other countries expect criticism.
> people of nations aligned with the US are critical of the US defending itself
As an european, I properly couldn't care less about US defending itself, there is no higher moral ground compared to say China (Russia is a special case). We know about all the dirty unlawful watching, how we are considered less than american citizens in many ways etc.
I mean we all get why you guys do it, it just has the same moral ground as Chinese doing it
I got a pretty good laugh out of you saying Russia is a special case (special because you're European). Different moral ground when it's a direct military threat in your own backyard.
Unlike most/all countries in Europe, the US has truly global security interests. As the sole superpower it is in long-term security / defense partnerships all over the world, including in Asia, which pertains directly to the China situation. As the most prominent example, the world's third largest economy - Japan - has no real ability to defend itself from China in a conflict and depends almost entirely on the US for military security (including the US nuclear umbrella).
Are the Europeans going to all rush to Asia to defend Japan and or South Korea in a conflict? No. They're not going to lift a finger to do anything (protest at the UN perhaps), and more realistically can't do anything even if they wanted to. So should the US abandon Japan re defense, pretend we have no security interest there at all? I don't think so.
So no, it's not just the same as China doing it. That's merely the perspective of a European with only regional (the Russian special case) security concerns.
North Korea and South Korea are also not on the same moral ground.
The US do a pretty bad job of being world police and have a bad habit of invading countries, changing the regime, then leaving the country to rot into anarchy.
Yes the US defends its allies, don't you think that China defends its allies too? The real test of a nation is how it treats nations for which it has a grievance with.
Currency is about trust. Do you trust these companies? Idk if you've been living under a rock, but a bunch of them are getting slammed for privacy and security breaches.
> Do people think they'll be able to change things?
An unpopular chief executive resigned in 2004 to protests half as large [1]. Beijing is at least somewhat constrained with respect to what it can openly do.
> In 2003, more than 500,000 protesters demanded Tung to step down in the light of the proposed legislation of the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 and the SARS outbreak. Tung resigned in the middle of his second term on 10 March 2005.
2 years delay make attributing causality seem like a bit of a stretch. The Wikipedia article makes it sound like he resigned after losing the backing of the PRC government.
Multiple elements weakened Tung, the most significant being his attempted pro-Beijing legislation and handling of the SARS epidemic. Those lead to a series of resignations and public dressings down. Beijing’s disapproval, while a factor, was neither the proximate nor dominant cause.
Hong Kong, politically and culturally, responds to protest.
These articles always leave me wondering what I can do today to contribute. Not money, not scientific research, just daily change like not using plastic bottles (or something).
This problem is always presented as a massive unsolvable thing that the government or someone with deep pockets needs to contribute focus to.
A few weeks ago I was outright downvoted right here on HN (edit: and also right now, within literally the first 30 seconds of posting this very comment!) for merely suggesting people start by getting their companies and coworkers to see business travel as a carbon liability to be minimized rather than a work perk to be maximized. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to how much we're genuinely willing to even consider entertaining the remote possibility of sacrificing from our own lives.
Well, to a degree, that's precisely right. Only a massive movement will fix this systemic problem. Throwing out plastic bottles won't fix the problem, although I wish it would.
A movement starts with a small number of people who believe in it. If an article convinced me to change something in my daily life, I'd probably tell other people to change it too.
Better than an article that leaves me with no action points.
Why not money? In a capitalist society, it's the one thing that really counts. Money represents resource allocation.
Trying to solve the problem by changing your own behavior, and only your own behavior, is low-order thinking. The real problem is that the cheapest behaviors are not also the most eco-friendly behaviors. Sure, you personally might be able to afford to (for example) pay more for glass containers, mentally chalking up the difference as an unaccounted externality in plastic bottles. But until that difference is accounted in the price, society's behavior will not change.
If you really want to solve the problem properly, it's better to spend your money on things that will change everyone's behavior, not just your own. That means things like lobbyists and scientific research. It's less personally satisfying but more effective.
Not everyone has the freedom to make arbitrary lifestyle changes either, if they don't make economic sense. This isn't about only taking action that's available to everyone. It's about each of us doing all that we can.
Forgive me if I misread, but you seemed to exclude monetary contribution as an option on principle, not out of poverty. What principle?
There's going on 8 billion people in the world. Whatever little things you do to make yourself feel better and shed the guilt they created in your mind isn't going to fix or slow down anything.
This is what they want to do--program your head so that you will accept a more totalitarian form of permanent global government that you can't question because it is all based on an un-provable environmental need. It is a brilliant tactic, to be sure. Every solution I have seen for this includes some kind of neo-serfdom where I have no rights. If I were in charge I would take every leftist and globalist I could find and hang them from the nearest lamp post. That would be a very carbon-neutral solution not only to overpopulation but also to the mind plague that dreams this crap up.
Also, hasn't the earth been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago? It is disingenuous to start graphs in the 1880s and then blame human industrialization. Oh hey, didn't Marxism also get started in the 1880s? Maybe Marxism caused global warming?
When Chrome did this they quickly highlighted how much control they have over what people view. Privacy focused open browsers will gain marketshare because of it.
The marketing aspects are particularly interesting. Kids don't really have the power to buy or convince an adult to buy. Parents are also only subject to things that are "learning" while users/kids only want things that are "fun". The product intersection of those two areas with quality are likely very small. Additionally, when kids and adults are generally excited about the same thing, it becomes less cool.
