Cringely Predicts the U.S. Can't Stop WeChat (cringely.com) 134
An anonymous reader quotes long-time technology pundit Robert Cringely:
Forty-five days from now, we're told, President Trump will shut down TikTok and WeChat. TikTok, maybe, but WeChat? Impossible...
Trump has a chance of taking down TikTok, the short form video sharing site, because that service is dependent on advertising. He can force the app out of U.S. app stores (though not out of foreign ones) and he can cut off the flow of ad dollars... at least those dollars that flow through American pockets. But there are workarounds, I'm sure, even for TikTok and 45 days is a lot of time to come up with them. So maybe the service will be sold to Microsoft or maybe not. In either case I'm sure TikTok will survive in some form.
WeChat, on the other hand, will thrive.
WeChat, if you haven't used it, is the mobile operating system for China. It's an app platform in its own right that is used for communication, entertainment, and commerce. Imagine Facebook, LinkedIn, PayPal, Venmo, Skype, Uber, Gmail and eBay all in a single application. That's WeChat. It's even a third-party application platform, so while U.S. banks operate on the Internet, Chinese banks operate on WeChat. Shutting WeChat down in the U.S. would be a huge blow to WeChat's parent company, TenCent, and a huge blow to the Chinese diaspora. Except it won't work.
To defeat President Trump, all WeChat users need is a Virtual Private Network and any WeChat users already in the U.S. already have a VPN to defeat the much more formidable Great Firewall of China.
Trump has a chance of taking down TikTok, the short form video sharing site, because that service is dependent on advertising. He can force the app out of U.S. app stores (though not out of foreign ones) and he can cut off the flow of ad dollars... at least those dollars that flow through American pockets. But there are workarounds, I'm sure, even for TikTok and 45 days is a lot of time to come up with them. So maybe the service will be sold to Microsoft or maybe not. In either case I'm sure TikTok will survive in some form.
WeChat, on the other hand, will thrive.
WeChat, if you haven't used it, is the mobile operating system for China. It's an app platform in its own right that is used for communication, entertainment, and commerce. Imagine Facebook, LinkedIn, PayPal, Venmo, Skype, Uber, Gmail and eBay all in a single application. That's WeChat. It's even a third-party application platform, so while U.S. banks operate on the Internet, Chinese banks operate on WeChat. Shutting WeChat down in the U.S. would be a huge blow to WeChat's parent company, TenCent, and a huge blow to the Chinese diaspora. Except it won't work.
To defeat President Trump, all WeChat users need is a Virtual Private Network and any WeChat users already in the U.S. already have a VPN to defeat the much more formidable Great Firewall of China.
Cringely again? (Score:2)
Re:Cringely again? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, he is correct.
I use WeChat every day.
From a tech standpoint, there is no way for the government to stop me from using it without building a Chinese-style national firewall.
From a legal standpoint, there is no way for the government to stop me from using it without tossing the Constitution into the shredder.
Re: (Score:2)
From a tech standpoint, there is no way for the government to stop me from using it without building a Chinese-style national firewall.
Who said they won't implement a firewall, I am not saying they should or I would support it, but it clearly is technically feasible, and given enough fearmongering possible. You could argue that if China can build a firewall to keep out the bad capitalist ideas, why shouldn't the US do the same to keep out those bad communist ideas out. Most people will not care as long as they get to post their selfies and messages.
Re:Cringely again? (Score:5, Insightful)
why shouldn't the US do the same to keep out those bad communist ideas out.
Because one of those bad ideas is that the government should control what people do, read, and think.
If we have to become them to oppose them, then what is the point?
Re:Cringely again? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not oppression when *our* side does it ... it's, ummm, standing up for traditional values or Jesus or something.
Re: Cringely again? (Score:2)
I'm curious what you'd think if it were a country that allowed for the possession and distribution of underage pornography. Would you feel like there should be an attempt to stop it technologically? Or just allow it to be out there on the internet because it's that country's right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I already often felt with Bush as if his diplomacy was from the Civilization 1 game, maybe the Replubican presidents get their training from there.
To be more realistic, the influence probably went the other way, from Republican world
Re: (Score:2)
Most people won't, but the corporations who actually run the country would have a cow. Ain't happening.
Re:Cringely again? (Score:5, Insightful)
The GFW is not just a technical solution, or a willingness to over-block, but includes a huge army of manual enforcers, and a fear-based self-censorship component to achieve its ends. But from a purely technical point of view, the foreign facing portion of China's network infrastructure is far less porous than Americas, since it was built with censorship in mind.
Technical enforcement
In China, the Internet developed with choke points built into it. Virtually all Internet traffic between China and the rest of the world travels through a small number of fiber-optic cables that enter the country at one of ten different backbone access points, seven of which had only been added in January 2015. A limited number of international entry points, coupled with the fact that all Internet service providers in China are licensed and controlled by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, mean that Chinese authorities can analyze and manipulate Internet traffic much more easily than, say, the United States.
Manual enforcement
An estimated 50,000 employees make up the Chinese Internet police force that manually monitors online content, directly deleting undesirable content or ordering websites, content hosts and service providers to delete offending material. In addition, the government hires around 300,000 members of the '50 Cent Party' (ie paid at the rate of 50 cents RMB per post).
Self censorship
The Chinese government has also been successful in fostering a culture of self censorship on the Internet. Not only are ISPs expected to monitor and filter content on their networks according to state guidelines, but all Internet companies operating in China are also required by law to self censor their content. As a result, many large Internet companies also employ their own computer algorithms and human editors to identify and remove objectionable material. If companies can't successfully censor their content, they face harsh penalties: warnings, fines, temporary shutdowns and possible revocation of their business licenses. Netizens themselves are also expected to toe the party line online, and similarly face serious consequences — you could lose your job, be held in detention or go to prison. There's even a euphemism for the stern warning you could receive: being "invited to have a cup of tea" with government officials.
Re: (Score:2)
Manual enforcement
An estimated 50,000 employees make up the Chinese Internet police force that manually monitors online content, directly deleting undesirable content or ordering websites, content hosts and service providers to delete offending material. In addition, the government hires around 300,000 members of the '50 Cent Party' (ie paid at the rate of 50 cents RMB per post).
Is that all?
That part doesn't seem like much of a problem.
America has More than 30 million people on benefits [bbc.com]
This week, nearly 1.2 million people filed new claims for unemployment. More than 31 million people - roughly 1 in 5 American workers - continue to collect the benefits.
They could even work from home.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the American 'Manual Internet Enforcement Army' might be doing a lot of barbecues and quizzes too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like they've stopped all the remittances to Cuba . . .
Re: (Score:3)
start going after payment providers related to WeChat.
Are any of the providers even located in America?
I live in the SF Bay Area. Many restaurants and shops here accept WeChat payments.
When I pay with WeChat in California, my RMB account in China is debited.
Re: (Score:2)
When I pay with WeChat in California, my RMB account in China is debited.
Yes, but how did the restaurant get paid in dollars? This requires the banking system/foreign exchange system to be accessible. The US has already leveraged the banking system (its control over the US dollar which is the basis for most international transactions) to stop Europe from making transactions with Iran via sanctions against any company that violated the US policy. Essentially, companies doing business outside of their own currency had a choice of trading *only* with Iran or not at all with Iran.
D
Re: (Score:1)
You're ridiculous.
The orange shitbag who's pushing all of this will be out of office in 6 month, will be starting the rest of his life in prison within 12 months.
Anything he does or says now is a fucking joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Give that man or woman or person a cigar! That is exactly the point!
Oh wait it will all be bitcoin and the likes right? /s ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who needs an app store? They could offer it for download on their web site. You can still just download an app and install it on Android.
iOS are less in luck. But then, iOS users must be used to that by now. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
iOS are less in luck. But then, iOS users must be used to that by now. ;)
Well . . . the WeChat folks could make their source available so you could download, build and install the app yourself. You don't need an Apple Developer License . . . just access to a Mac with Xcode installed.
The app is free, so it is not like WeChat wants to make money by selling the app. They just want folks to use it.
Of course, then iOS users could actually see what the app is doing inside under the covers . . . but that is another matter.
Re: (Score:3)
you could download, build and install the app yourself
Sure, that would work for the 5% of iToy users who would have a clue how to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple users are mostly developers
Did you forget the /sarcasm tag, or what? That's not even the case at Amazon, which probably has a higher population of iToy users than anywhere outside of Cupertino and has tens of thousands of developers on staff.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I didn't
Next you'll be telling me only 5% of Linux users can build their own code?
Either POSIX is mostly devs, or it isn't, you can't really have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Well over two billion iToys have been sold. Are you absolutely positive that over a billion people on Earth are software devs?
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say anything about software, there is a lot more to developing than flipping bits, a job as of 2020 that is mostly little more than flipping burgers.
Re: (Score:1)
->less than 1% of all apple-computers have xcode installed.
You realise installing xcode on mac is a one click, free affair direct from Apple.
Compared to windows which requires reinstalling the OS several times because of the virus's you picked up just trying get basic development functionality.
And if you got down of your high horse, you might notice that art and design is a major part of any dev and pretty much all art/design guys and gals are on mac.
Re: (Score:2)
US block would come via financial penalties for companies interacting with Tencent and some of its holdings. This is not a novel tactic. There's no need to get users involved (read: give them a choice). Corporations will do the heavy lifting all on their own in fear of repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they sure do like to share that wealth evenly, don't they?
Read your first sentence (Score:5, Informative)
> Stop trying to use words you do not understand.
Indeed.
--
Definition of fascism
1often capitalized :
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
--
Yep, that's China.
Communism is an economic system where the government controls the the economy - production and use of resources. It's therefore necessarily authoritarian. Communism also "exalts nation aabove the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government". Therefore you really can't have communism without fascism. You can, however, have fascism without communism.
Ps - Definition copy/pasted from Merriam-Webster (Score:2)
Btw, the definition is straight from Merriam-Webster.
Ps Fascio means bundle, together, communal (Score:2)
Btw the word "fascist" is Italian. Fascio means "bundle", as indicating a group as opposed to individuals. There have been multiple facist parties with different politics. The defining characteristic is that they espouse the idea of fascio, of "we're all together", a communal ideology as opposed to individual rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.
Using English rather than the Italian "fascio", fascist could be translated as "together-ist", or "community-ist", or "commune-ist".
Re: (Score:1)
Lincoln statues tend to be adorned with fasces because he kept the union together. The American usage of fasces wasn't as much as communal ideology over the individual rights but individuals (states) coming together united and strong together. The federal government is the binding for the states and through that unity is strength.
But as with most things. One person/group can ruin it for every one so the fasces has that group over individual aspect from fascist italy. Same thing happened with the Bellamy sal [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Communism is an economic system where the government controls the the economy - production and use of resources. It's therefore necessarily authoritarian.
There is so much wrong with this. The notion that government control of anything is necessarily authoritarian is, all by itself, a denial of the principle notion behind democracy: that people can control the government. If you can't accept the idea that a government can be by the people and for the people, then you can't accept democracy.
This is fine of course, there are alternatives to democracy for people who think it doesn't go far enough. The most popular of these are communism and, to the left of th
Re: Cringely again? (Score:5, Insightful)
China is about as communist as it is a people's republic. That is, it maintains the trappings and rhetoric, but it's basically a capitalist technocratic oligarchy with a command economy.
Re: (Score:1)
Tik Tok isn't going anywhere, either (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen Miller [wikipedia.org] dreams of this ... and not just for creating a U.S. Internet, which would, I guess, then be called the Intranet.
Re: Tik Tok isn't going anywhere, either (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Tik Tok isn't going anywhere, either (Score:3)
but can't people just go to any web page to download an "app" for their phones?
Congratulations on predicting the future. See the US reassert governance over a DNS system. No, you won't be able to go to the wechat webpage.
Call it the "long arm of the law." They never did convict Al Capone for his mobster activities, but they did nail him on tax evasion.
It's that same principle that makes me think Cringely will be wrong on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
On Android, that is possible, but a number of security warnings must be bypassed. Apps attempting to self-update generate further warnings in later versions of Android. Also, in the standard configuration, Google Play Protect can be quite incessant about prompting for removal of apps that it deems unsafe, but that feature may not be triggered given Google's wishy-w
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. Do you buy these machines, or rent them?
Re: (Score:2)
Reality called. Regardless of what you or I might _want_ to be the case, iphones cannot bypass the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure if you want malwares. Also, I think Apple users won't let users download from their stores unless jailbroken. :P
Over the long term (Score:1)
A modest proposal ... (Score:1, Funny)
The U.S. should have something like this, maybe called UsChat. Then we can have Us and they can have We for our respective chatting, but they probably won't be able to interoperate because we and us won't technically be the same thing, even though linguistically they are. For clarity, each can refer to the other as "ThemChat". Obviously, the Great Firewall of China, and whatever like that the President would really like the U.S. to have, will also get in the way... In related thinking, the U.S. version
Re: (Score:3)
We want to be friends with China, and we've helped each other a lot over the last 100 years, from Vietnam, to WW2, to plenty of positive trade agreements. But when the CCP prevents free speech, that is a human rights violation and it needs to change.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the goal, dubious, this is a really stupid approach. I find it much easier to believe this administration has just decided that they want as much control as possible, and this is a way to get more. Which is still stupid running up to an election, but less so...and might even work.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a new form of the protectionism the administration has been preaching from the start. When US companies can't compete in the market (like Vine losing to TikTok), the government can step in to outlaw foreign competition. Then an inferior US clone of it can take over that market and money. Throw in a silly pretense of caring about user privacy to stop the WTO from issuing a fine.
Re: A modest proposal ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it much easier to believe this administration has just decided that they want as much control as possible, and this is a way to get more.
That's because you're assuming based on what you've seen, and your gut feeling, which is leading you astray. You haven't actually looked at the actions and words of the administration on the topic, and your opinion is based on ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the goal, the goal is to pressure the people of China to change the CCP.
The result will likely be the opposite.
China has suffered from centuries of foreign interference. They are very hostile to outsiders trying to impose changes on their country.
America is not going to "fix" China. That is up to the Chinese people.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody ever said USA foreign policy was intelligent. Same as 40 years of sanctions are the only scapegoat allowing the Islamic Republic to stay in power, and 60 years of sanctions ensured continued communist rule in Cuba. And the Soviet Union was defeated by offering help instead of sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
America is not going to "fix" China. That is up to the Chinese people.
That is literally the sentence you quoted, and tried to disagree with.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech has never existed in the last 5000 years of Chinese history, they don't see it as anything lacking. On the other hand they have full employment and there is no starvation, which is a new development in China. Unfortunately the US doesn't see hunger and poverty as human rights issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of Chinese people have no influence over political decisions, and can be dissapeared
And in what way is that different from any other time in the last 5000 years there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I see you didn't contest that UK, Canada, Germany, USA...are no better than China when it comes to human rights violations.
It's fairly obvious, I can only conclude that you are really bad at researching. In the US, you might get arrested for protesting if you are violent. In Hong Kong, you might get arrested and sent to prison for life, no trial, even if your protest is peaceful.
America defends freedom of speech. There might be areas we can do better, but the CCP doesn't try.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
America has shown that it doesn't give a shit about human rights
Now you're just trolling, this is clearly false.
Re: phantomfive == American bootlicker (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: phantomfive == American bootlicker (Score:2)
To defeat President Trump (Score:1, Insightful)
You gotta vote him out!
The problem is:
Trump v. Biden
People can move to open source if they really want to circumvent the political stupidity
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that a Biden isn't a great choice either. Yeah, he's better, and I'll vote that way, but he's not a good choice. Warren was the better choice.
OTOH, it's possible that Biden is more electable. Perhaps it was the pragmatic choice. But the "lesser of two evils" is still evil. And occasionally turns out to be not that lesser.
E.g., Trump may have been the US president the world needs at this time. He's thoroughly trashed the US alliances, and rendered the country helpless against COVID, and
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
China has not been building bases in Canada and Mexico, China has not been patrolling the California coast with their navy. They were never going to be the ones launching the first strike of WWIII, they never even got to the planning stages of building the capability for global (rather than regional) military (rather than economic) hegemony. The USA is quickly becoming a wounded animal with a nuclear arsenal and less to lose, so the chances of WWIII are not going down.
Re: (Score:2)
And the point is because of Trump's actions they don't need to. We've isolated ourselves, so no need for anyone else to try.
Also, with everyone having ICBMs of various kinds, local bases are a lot less important than they used to be. So don't fixate on them. And remember that most of the land in the world is Eurasia (+Africa). Look at the "Belt and road" plan that is being implemented.
Re: (Score:1)
Support for Trump is pathological, that has always been crystal clear.
I guess we're expected to settle for Biden, the 44 year incumbent, since nobody bothered to vote for anyone better, or really even look for anyone better, they all wait for some big mass media endorsement to follow, or they wouldn't know who to vote for.
100% false (Score:2)
any WeChat users already in the U.S. already have a VPN
I can verify that this is 100% false.
Not just Chinese people (Score:3)
any WeChat users already in the U.S. already have a VPN to defeat the much more formidable Great Firewall of China.
Nope. My wife's parents and siblings have been using WeChat as a group-messaging app for the last couple of years.
We're talking non-tech-savvy, rural, white Anglo Americans.
The idea that WeChat is just for the Chinese diaspora is laughable.
Re:Not just Chinese people (Score:4, Informative)
There are no reasons to use WeChat as a chat platform. Chat platform is a tiny portion of WeChat, most of it is various payment, shopping, ordering, Chinese bureaucracy, etc platform. And most users are Chinese, with most of the rest being their family members. It's a Chinese piece of software specifically written for Chinese audience.
For actual chatting, everything from whatsapp to telegram to signal, to countless other options is utterly superior in everything from having a user base outside Chinese people, interface, security, performance, and so on.
Unless your wife's parents and siblings are ethnic Chinese (reminder: China considers all ethnic Chinese people to be Chinese and as such their people regardless of citizenship status or residency status) or married to Chinese, or live in a Chinatown and need local services that they can only get from WeChat, there's simply no reason whatsoever to even hear about WeChat outside news.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For one thing, WeChat allows plugins. Whatsapp doesn't. Signal doesn't. Telegram doesn't. For another thing, WeChat has seamless integration with the facebook-like profile pages and feeds, better security than facebook (when you add a friend you have very fine-grained permissions on what you allow them to see or have access to. I can add someone on WeChat and allow them access to *nothing*. They'd go into my c
Re: (Score:3)
>WeChat allows plugins.
Because it's not a chat platform, but one stop shop for everything Chinese people might need.
>For another thing, WeChat has seamless integration with the facebook-like profile pages and feeds
Because it's not a chat platform, but one stop shop for everything Chinese people might need.
>when you add a friend you have very fine-grained permissions on what you allow them to see or have access to. I can add someone on WeChat and allow them access to *nothing*. They'd go into my con
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? The rest of the functionality (whether it's 90% or 99% or 99.99%) that he doesn't use is irrelevant, as long as the bit he does use works for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And the point remains that if you're not Chinese or want to message Chinese people, people you want to message are almost certainly not on it.
The rest of the arguments are just silly as I point out, like "support person can change my UI for me". And you have to remember that WeChat being pretty much the primary way CCP handlers track and target Chinese expats nowadays, you're going to get a lot of sock puppets making frivolous arguments like these.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And the point remains that if you're not Chinese or want to message Chinese people, people you want to message are almost certainly not on it.
[looks at contact list]
German, Portuguese, Mexican, Zimbabwean, Russian, Belorussian, Israeli, British, American...
Pretty much everyone I want to message is on it.
Re: Not just Chinese people (Score:2)
It won't work? (Score:3)
Shutting WeChat down in the U.S. would be a huge blow to WeChat's parent company, TenCent, and a huge blow to the Chinese diaspora. Except it won't work.
Why won't it work? From a technical point of view. Sure it will cause great pain for the Chinese diaspora. And if the ban extends to Tencent's holdings (League of legends and Fortnite), I suppose a lot of teenagers are going to have to read a book or play outside. But domains have been seized and servers blocked. before. If by "It won't work" you mean it's not legal, just or constitutional, when Biden says "We're going to take your guns" and everyone treats that as fait accompli, how does Fortnite differ? Do you really think you can stand up to the US military when they come to your front door and demand to delete your games?
Re: (Score:2)
False statement (Score:3, Insightful)
False statement. That never happened.
Do you really think you can stand up to the US military when they come to your front door and demand to delete your games?
What are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well say Biden is coming for your kitchen knives because he opposes personal nuclear arsenals.
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well say Biden is coming for your AR-15 because he opposes assault weapons.
if its removed from the app stores it's dead (Score:3)
Kocking it off the primary app stores would be enough to cripple it beyond saving in the USA.
Apple's chokehold on the ios app store will be enough to kill it for >40% of the country if it were removed from the app store in the USA.
Knocking it out of the main android app stores just in the US market, forcing people to use offshore 3rd party app stores or sideload it and then use a VPN, obviously won't prevent people from getting it if they want it but would be sufficient to cripple it for anyone not dead-set on having it.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. And that would mean that Chinese Americans would need to ditch Apple for Android. Apple would not be pleased!
Re: (Score:2)
I can't get upset about this. China blocks just about any platform it doesn't have control over, that's why WeChat is so dominant. Facebook, Twitter, Skype etc etc etc are all restricted in China and non-Chinese have to fuck around to deal with that, so I could care less if WeChat face the same issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for the US to realise its not the entire world and there are more than enough people outside the US to support an ecosystem. The only thing this does is put Apple, Google et al in conflict with US law vs non-US law - if the EU require Apple, Google et al to continue to allow the apps access to the European stores for example, including payment systems - whose law are they going to follow?
Re: (Score:2)
a) I specifically restricted my comments to the US jurisdiction; as removing wechat from US appstores would effectively cripple it in the US. I never said anything globally, and the global situation really doesn't matter in terms of the US administration looking to protect US residents.
b) " if the EU require Apple, Google et al to continue to allow the apps access to the European stores for example, including payment systems - whose law are they going to follow?"
-- I'd love to hear your rationale on why th
WeChat is a surveillance tool (Score:1)
I am all for pounding the narcissist moron in chief and there's no possibility at all that he's doing this for the right reasons, but WeChat is defintiely somethign we should hurt any way we can.
WeChat is a tool for the Chinese totalitarian state.
You don't buy things with cash or checks or even credit cards in China. You buy them with WeChat. You need a phone on and logged in as you when you make a purchase of food, beer, etc. The phone knows who you are, as an individual, and where you are. Messages se
Cringely is a hack (Score:2)
VPN? That's his argument? As if people are going to incur an extra charge for a legit secondary service just to run their prefered mobile OS. Does Wechat even have a significant US user base?
Re: (Score:2)
US wechat users all have Chinese Great Firewall de (Score:1)
Trump won't do it anyway (Score:2)
Trump won't do it because he this is the trend. He makes threats on Twitter promising to do some thing x, and then ends up backing out without admitting that's what he's doing. Alternatively, he does do some thing x, and then a few weeks later he reverses course. It's happened so many times now I've lost count. A major recent example is when he sent federal agents into Portland, and then removed them not long after.
Tbh, this whole thing is just a distraction from the pandemic and the state of the economy an
I think he misunderstands the goal. (Score:1)
I don't think Trump cares about stopping people from mainland China, from accessing their WeChat while traveling abroad. That's completely besides the point.
He just doesn't want it to become influential and widely used in America the way he fears TikTok may be doing among teenagers, and he certainly doesn't want US government employees using it on their work phones. I think he can definitely stop the latter, and while I'm not sure if he can stop the former, Cringely's argument doesn't apply to that, eithe
Re: (Score:3)
OK, I'll take that challenge (;-))
I predict that WeChat will announce a built-in VPN service in... about a week.
Interesting experiment (Score:2)
Any VPN inside WeChat will have to be CCP-friendly - it will have to conceal traffic from everyone but the Chinese censors.
Everything we've heard about encrypted messaging says that giving the keys to one third party is fundamentally insecure.
We may be about to test that assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the master keys to the VPN generated by the Chinese government. The US can't see all the VPN traffic, just WeChat and the Chinese government can.
The difference between Facebook, WeChat and China is getting harder to discern. Facebook wants to be both WeChat and it's own government.