This is a very bad brief article imho with a lot of statements out of seemingly nothing and some very questionable claims that are backed by nothing.
Sentences like,
Europeans have, in general, no idea what damage they are inflicting upon themselves with their absurd data protection obsession,
are not only insulting, they show that the author has no idea about a democratic regulations. The author does not even mention the risks to individuals and the society caused by China's permanent surveillance (a good documentary is Total Trust, which "sounds an alarm about the increasing use of surveillance tools around the world").
I would also like to know what makes the author think that "economists think that it is more efficient... to let Europe be a museum", just to name an example. The article is full of bold claims that are backed by no facts nor numbers.
The author, as mentioned in my intro, is about as credible as you could ask for, with decades of experience at the highest level of journalism (specifically, the FT).
In contrast, your random documentary is vouched for by who exactly? Anyone can find "numbers" to back up any argument. Who paid for your video and why should we believe it and not a respected journalist? Indeed, what are your interests and why should we believe you? Authority and expertise is ultimately a game of trust.
That you personally disagree with a conclusion is neither here nor there. But given your assiduity at posting a single viewpoint, day after day, month after month, I'm suspecting that you would prefer simply never to read anything that challenges your own priors and makes you feel uncomfortable. To be honest, I'm intrigued by your stamina as a propagandist. It's not a very Western trait, to the point that I'm guessing you're of Chinese heritage yourself, perhaps an exiled Hongkonger with a grudge. But the purported purpose of this forum is to share "news about China". It is not meant to be a Global Times-style propaganda channel against the CPC, which is what you seem to be trying to make it. I hate to have to lecture you, but a core value of the Western Enlightenment is truth-seeking, of triangulating "facts" to get a better understanding of reality. Sometimes that means seeing things you disagree with.
You're ignoring my main point, which is that your monomaniacal posting activity in this community suggests that you see no value in hearing a from diversity of voices. AKA pluralism, which is a core principle of liberalism, of the Enlightenment, of journalism - and so something you should care about given your apparent concern about the repressive Chinese regime.
You're respecting the letter of the rules of this community, but not their spirit.
This is a very bad brief article imho with a lot of statements out of seemingly nothing and some very questionable claims that are backed by nothing.
Sentences like,
are not only insulting, they show that the author has no idea about a democratic regulations. The author does not even mention the risks to individuals and the society caused by China's permanent surveillance (a good documentary is Total Trust, which "sounds an alarm about the increasing use of surveillance tools around the world").
I would also like to know what makes the author think that "economists think that it is more efficient... to let Europe be a museum", just to name an example. The article is full of bold claims that are backed by no facts nor numbers.
[Edit to insert the link.]
The author, as mentioned in my intro, is about as credible as you could ask for, with decades of experience at the highest level of journalism (specifically, the FT).
In contrast, your random documentary is vouched for by who exactly? Anyone can find "numbers" to back up any argument. Who paid for your video and why should we believe it and not a respected journalist? Indeed, what are your interests and why should we believe you? Authority and expertise is ultimately a game of trust.
That you personally disagree with a conclusion is neither here nor there. But given your assiduity at posting a single viewpoint, day after day, month after month, I'm suspecting that you would prefer simply never to read anything that challenges your own priors and makes you feel uncomfortable. To be honest, I'm intrigued by your stamina as a propagandist. It's not a very Western trait, to the point that I'm guessing you're of Chinese heritage yourself, perhaps an exiled Hongkonger with a grudge. But the purported purpose of this forum is to share "news about China". It is not meant to be a Global Times-style propaganda channel against the CPC, which is what you seem to be trying to make it. I hate to have to lecture you, but a core value of the Western Enlightenment is truth-seeking, of triangulating "facts" to get a better understanding of reality. Sometimes that means seeing things you disagree with.
There is no 'conclusion' but rather a series of statements. There is no analysis at all. The author can have
My posts here come from reliable high-quality sources citing verifiable facts.
You're ignoring my main point, which is that your monomaniacal posting activity in this community suggests that you see no value in hearing a from diversity of voices. AKA pluralism, which is a core principle of liberalism, of the Enlightenment, of journalism - and so something you should care about given your apparent concern about the repressive Chinese regime.
You're respecting the letter of the rules of this community, but not their spirit.