Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not the person you are asking, but I think I have a point that can help shed some light on the matter. I'm going to be speaking from the Canadian side of things, and so I'll be saying 'We' a lot due to the US and Canada tending to trade alike in a lot of ways AFAIK.

Ultimately, it all boils down to known trajectories. The EU and other places in the general area such as the UK, are all known to have histories of their own no doubt. Not just good histories, but bad as well. We trade with Germany, despite WWII. We trade with middle eastern countries, despite having many beliefs and ideologies and laws that are not exactly loved by all to put it lightly. We trade with even out economic adversaries because why not. Cheap labor, etc.

In all of these cases where we trade with any one of these places that someone could make some argument or another that they would be undesirable trade partners for; the future trajectory of that nation is what is the key point of where the decision is based off of to keep trading, or go with sanctions, etc and so forth.

The key to understanding this as I do, is the basis of Canada still trading with China when USA decides not to, or to restrict trade, etc and so forth. This is because our government for the past while now has decided that they wanted to help China get out of its economic slump from the past decades. And so of course since America tends to be a bit hawkish around working with communism in any form, while Canada has more socialist roots established; we tend to be more willing to work with such nations than America tends to. (And this absolutely sometimes pisses them off, government wise so to speak. And the nationalist types...)

Now in the past, most of this would have been water under the bridge, and nothing to be concerned about. Trade is trade, nothing more, nothing less; usually.

But with the advent of all of this digital revolution we are going through, and politics being stuck into everything that has a usable screen; the end result is stuff like this where countries with histories of X thing that Y government doesn't like automatically get extra scrutinized.

Especially when those countries have active militaries that support that kind of regime in said country. Doubly so when that country is in support of those militaries. One might say militia instead, but I fail to see the difference once they own navy vessels. I think this should be a fair opinion on the matter.

Anyways, right or wrong on the military/militia part as I may be, the end point is that we are seeing a rise in more extreme behavior in that country, in this case China and Russia lately; and so it only makes sense to be even more scrutinizing of anything to do with them.

Literally anything, since again; politics is in everything now.

Even us in Canada are starting to pull back from China, even though we are doing it at a slower rate. Our government is trying very hard to basically only enact these kinds of retracting changes only when it is going to hurt their future election outlook the least; or hurts their opponents outlook the most.

As for an example of this in action; Huawei 5G networks are effectively banned in Canada now. It took a while to come into fruition, but it finally happened. Whether or not they were right or wrong to do so is not my hill to fight on right now, but it is a great example of them biding their time til the last moment.



[flagged]


You are asking whether sporadic US police abuses and a literal police state stack up comparably in terms of human rights?


They aren’t sporadic, they are systemic. You’re assuming it’s different because you’ve been conditioned to believe the “land of the free” myth.


what is a police state?


Huh, a single guy having all the power and changing the fundamental rules of the game (aka constitution or however it's called in China)? Not a red flag?


Except in China there is no “single guy” like this. China is “democratic” same way US is - they vote for something similar to electors.


You need to define what your quotes mean.

If it was democratic, disagreeing with the government wouldn't send you to jail. Try walking in Shanghai with a sign saying "the government is corrupt" and see how long you last.


Meanwhile in real world: https://m.thebl.tv/china/china-shanghai-citizens-break-block...

As for the quotes - according to Chinese their system is democratic. According to Americans theirs is. From my European point of view both are somewhat flawed democracies, China because despite advancing surprisingly quickly they are not there yet when it comes to transparency and human rights, and US because its political system is essentially just institutionalized corruption. That and indirect voting.


"armed police officers dressed in protective clothing came to the location to drive out the crowd"

"armed police officers dressed in protective clothing came to the location to drive out the crowd."

This is you making your point about China being democratic?

US being "institutionalised corruption": sources? How is Europe.less corrupt? Again, sources?


It’s not normal for police to protect demonstrations in your country? Which country is that, if I may ask?

As for corruption - in Europe corporations can’t just buy congressmen. In US it’s the norm.


Yes it's normal for the police to ensure a demonstration goes peacefully. It is a fundamental right in many countries to demonstrate. In China it is not. What country do _you_ leave in, where demonstrating is not allowed?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: