• VarykEnglish
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    1 year ago
    link
    fedilink

    Interesting how you ignored the theft of hypersonic missile software and metadata of entire populations, then went straight back to victim blaming.

    “simply because the economies of these countries are intricately tied into the success of these companies, and these companies receive significant government investment through government-owned and government-managed funds” - yes, this is exactly my point. State-sponsored they of IP, specifically citizen data and weapons systems is not mundane and it’s not okay.

    Nobody expects theft not to happen, scarecrow, the problem is that country C is having threats against country A while stealing strategic and military data.

    However you justify theft, theft is wrong, and in this case, dangerous. This is a bad thing that the Chinese government and companies are sponsoring. It doesn’t matter that other entities do it too, it’s still a bad thing.

    Your incorrect argument is that because there is a LOT of rape, rape is fine. You are wrong. Rape is still horrific, malign behavior, regardless of how many people do it.

    • zephyreksEnglish
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      1 year ago
      link
      fedilink

      Your incorrect argument is that a rapist gets to make that determination. They don’t. It’s like saying “my rape was ok, but yours isn’t!

      That’s not how things work. It’s either ok or it isn’t.

      Maybe if it was a country that didn’t built it’s entire economy on the back of corporate espionage, you might have a bit of an argument.

      • VarykEnglish
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        1 year ago
        link
        fedilink

        So your argument is repeating and agreeing with what I just told you: that a malicious act is malicious regardless of how many people do it. Thank you for conceding that point, however odd it is to frame my argument as your own argument. Given you’re still taking my side, I’m fine with it

        And then right after that you vaguely argue against yourself that because one country commits corporate espionage, it’s okay that other countries commit corporate espionage.

        You’re making a case in support of my argument that malicious acts are malicious regardless of how many people commit them, and then subsequently arguing against yourself, which I do appreciate, so thank you for your support!

        Protip: try not to precisely paraphrase the argument the person you’re arguing against has put forward, including their example, and then agree with their point and example; this will usually lead to you losing the argument.

        • zephyreksEnglish
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          1 year ago
          link
          fedilink

          There’s no reason for country-level sanctions for private corporate espionage. It’s that simple.

          It doesn’t matter if corporate espionage is malicious and it’s frankly hypocritical for America to be calling out other countries’ corporate espionage.

          • VarykEnglish
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            1 year ago
            link
            fedilink

            Glad you agree with my points, even if it took you four reiterations to understand them.

            Nobody argued that there should be country level sanctions for private corporate espionage, weird that you keep focusing on arguments nobody has made.

            Yes, of course it matters if the theft of military data by a hostile state is malicious. It is of the essence.

            And no, victim blaming still won’t get you anywhere.

            I appreciate your support

            • zephyreksEnglish
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              1 year ago
              link
              fedilink

              Except that’s exactly what you’re calling for? You gave evidence of (presumably a Chinese telecom) stealing T-Mobile testing equipment as a reason for the sanctions.

              • VarykEnglish
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                1 year ago
                link
                fedilink

                That robot was stolen by Huawei, which is heavily subsidized by the CCP.

                But what I have said repeatedly, regardless of your presumptive tangents, is that state level actions make a state responsible, and in the examples I gave, a hostile state has ownership ties to companies stealing energy production data and military data.

                • zephyreksEnglish
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  But you don’t consider T-Mobile, Apple, Intel, or Microsoft to be American state-sponsored companies despite their hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax incentives?

                  Odd.

                  The recent CHIPS act gave Intel what, like $20 billion in subsidies. Guess what? That’s what governments do to stimulate economic growth.

                  • VarykEnglish
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago
                    link
                    fedilink

                    Odder that you keep making false arguments and pretending they are my arguments.