This is what I mean when I say people who are domain experts, often confidently produce the most garbage takes on topics outside their expertise. This guy's domain? Selling the dream of getting rich through vibecoding to an audience of desperate, non-technical entrepreneurs
Context
Jeeses levelsio, I've followed you for a year and I'm also Dutch and entrepreneur, *and* Chinese at the same time. PLEASE can you have an open mind about this for a change? People who disagree with you on China aren't automatically "bots". Consider the possibility that it only looks that way to you because the image you've been fed since birth is too far off from what they say. Again, I'm Chinese *and* Dutch. I was born there and I have a regular day job as software developer. Dutch society has been feeding me falsehoods about China for the entire 30 years I've lived here. I know things on the ground and I have absolutely no reason to lie about this.
So @SimonSW13 @honglilai could you explain what happened? I'm interested!
Discussion
This isn't about punishing criticism or tech crackdown, but about preventing state capture by capital. He was leveraging his wealth and quasi-monopolistic position to exert disproportionate influence over the political and financial system. If he succeeded, his financial ecosystem would be bigger than banks while not being regulated as banks, creating systemtic risks for society. His “criticism” speech wasn’t bold truth-telling — it was hubris. (aside, re @levelsio: sorry but not sorry about using emdash — don't care whether it's "AI-like" but it's grammatically correct so I will use it. Not everybody using emdash is a bot) Anyway, it signaled to political leadership that he believed himself untouchable and above regulation, which triggered a necessary reassessment of his ambitions. In China, that kind of behavior is politically taboo — unlike in the U.S., where capital often captures the state through lobbying and campaign financing. In the Chinese system, political power is meant to be earned through decades of bureaucratic meritocracy — not bought through capital influence. Challenging that order is seen as destabilizing (and stability is a big value in Chinese society). So they broke up his monopoly. But he was never jailed or formally punished, contrary to the innuendo in many Western “disappearance” narratives. He was placed on an informal gag order and laid low for a while, doing nothing that could look politically threathening but could otherwise enjoy life as wanted, including that holiday to Europe. Now that the dust has settled, he’s cautiously reengaging — even appearing alongside top leadership — but he’s careful to steer clear of anything that could be perceived as politically threatening. I get that @levelsio is a huge proponent of the American model re entrepreneurship etc, I really get it since I'm also very involved in the startup scene and I share some of his frustrations about Europe. But at the end of the day I can't agree with what looks to me like one-sided worshipping without considering alternative perspectives. There *is* a real danger of monopolists getting too big and raising above governments and we shouldn't just ignore that and dismiss China's perspective on things.
1. He wanted to expand Ant Group and his financial ecosystem (Alipay, MYbank, etc.) to a parallel financial stucture, to the point where it would rival or surpass the traditional banking sector, but without being bound by the same strict regulations. Controlling such a vast financial network would give him influence over policy and even social stability. 2. Ant was giving out massive amounts of microloans and securitizing them, similar to what caused the 2008 U.S. financial crisis. Imagine this but without regulation.
3. This thread by @thinking_panda explains meritocracic promotion nicely: x.com/thinking_panda…
4. It means he wasn’t arrested, charged, or imprisoned — but was strongly “encouraged” by political authorities to stop making public appearances, stop giving provocative speeches, and stay out of the spotlight. No official document, no courtroom — just a quiet but firm message: step back, or there will be consequences. In practice, this meant disappearing from media, cancelling public events, shelving high-profile projects like Ant’s IPO, and avoiding any action that could look like a challenge to state authority. He could still travel, enjoy his wealth, and even reappear later — but on the condition that he stayed within politically acceptable boundaries.
And I guess this latter is where most of the tension with western observers come from. From a western point of view, it is only acceptable if political authorities use legal means to combat Jack Ma, no backroom pressure. Silencing him informally is seen as authoritarian overreach, even if the motives were sound. But from the Chinese system’s point of view, informal discipline is often the tool — faster, quieter, and better at preserving stability. Preventing disorder is seen as one of the highest goals in China. Furthermore, China operates on outcome legitimacy rather than procedural legitimacy, so effectively ensuring stability even when bending the rules is seen as more legitimate than strictly following the rules but failing to achieve desired outcomes. This is why what looks illegitimate in one system can feel entirely rational in another.
Chinese political tradition dating back thousands of years has always been about outcome. In Chinese thought, the state is not a neutral arbiter, it's the guarantor of stability. A state who does not deliver that is considered illegitimate even when proper procedure and laws are followed. A tyrant who delivers stability is preferred over an incompetent ruler. Another important Chinese value is unity. A ruler is only considered legitimate if he unifies China. A tyrant who unifies China is more legitimate than a hands-off "benevolent" ruler who fails to do so. This is why Mao is still revered despite mistakes: people respect him for one thing: unifying China. It's also why the Qin emperor 2000 years ago, widely considered a tyrant, is still respected for his feat of unifying China. Unity is more important than freedom. Chinese people also have a very different history that makes them prefer stability. In ancient times, the state was expected to mitigate floods and natural disasters, e.g. maintaining dams. It was being effective an government, or die. Mitigating flood was *the* founding myth of the oldest Chinese dynasty 5000 years ago. In recent times, with the fall of Qing, the Sino-British wars, the Sino-Japanese wars, republican era warlords, civil wars etc have caused a lot of instability trauma. People want to avoid that no matter what. Besides, when there is chaos and everyone is poor, nobody is free, no matter how much you can vote.
So it's not about efficiency, and definitely not for the sake of it. It's about effectiveness. Either be effective, or die. For a hundred years we had nothing, just ruins all around us. In China, things can get out of hand really quickly. In the late 19th century some guy claiming to be the brother of Jesus Christ managed to mobilize millions of people and launched a civil war that killed more peoplenthan in Europe WW2. The govt was weak back then and wasn't very good at quelling the rebellions. It's these kinds of historical cases that make even the modern Chinese govt fear the potential for large scale dissent.
China has the "luxury" of starting from a low base and having a clear image of what's most important: social stability, economic development, giving people better lives. Everything else flows from there. When China becomes prosperous enough for a long enough time, it may become complacent and lose sight of what's important. This sort of thing has happened numerous times in history. When that time comes, China will descent into chaos, wars will be waged and people will suffer, until a new government emerges to restore order and prosperity. This is the Chinese view on the cyclic nature of the rise and fall of dynasties/governments.
Oops, meant Uyghurs, not the french "Ouïghours"
Most western viewpoints on China have a core of truth but then gets twisted into something else. Re Tiananmen: a protest about economy and quality of life and a plea for a return to "true socialism", which then got hijacked by CIA to be turned into a color revolution. In the 80s as China transitioned from the Soviet model to a market model, lots of people suddenly found that their livelihoods are no longer guaranteed by the state and ran into economic problems. Most protestors were about this. From the Chinese point of view: one could say that the Tiananmen protests succeeded. Stability and order was restored, and it made the govt realize how important and urgent economic issues were. It made the govt hyper-focused on improving the economy and improving people's livelihoods, paving the way to today's prosperity. A part of the protestors wanted to overthrow the government and collaborated with western powers such as CIA to try to hijack the protests into one about "freedom". They did this by instigating violence, and by having foreign media focus on them and their cause. Thus, a one-sided narrative in the west was created, one about tanks crushing innocent protestors who just wanted more freedom. One could also say that the late protests were turning into a civil war. - People hijacked tanks and started shooting, killed and lynched soldiers. - Student leaders who supposedly only wanted freedom, said "hoped for a bloodbath" (in front of western interviewers) in order to further their cause. - The govt and the army was very restrained until things got too out of hand. They didn't send in tanks until very late. - The iconic "tank man" is always presented in western media in a way that insinuated that he and other protesters got ran over. But if you look at the original footage, you see that he actually climbed up on the tank, had a conversation with the soldier, then left. Nothing happened. - western stories give estimates about thousands killed in Tiananmen but these numbers are pulled out of thin air. Witnesses, including foreign diplomats and journalists, said nobody was killed in the square. There were casualties outside the square but that can be seen as civil war: there were casualties on both sides. - Govt sending in tanks should be seen in this context: China had no riot police or riot equipment back then, so sending in the military was all they could do. They won't do that nowadays now that they have a proper riot police. - Before things got out of hand, the govt did try to have active discussions with protesters. But as protests continued and got further and further hijacked, demands became more and more vague. Tiananmen is actually a lot like the Hong Kong protests in 2019. In collaboration with foreign forces such as CIA, they mobilized people's dissatisfaction about livelihood issues (like tiny homes and insane cost of living) and hijacked it into a movement about overthrowing the central government and secession, under the guise of "democracy". Just like the Tiananmen hijackers were not actually about democracy (as evidenced by e.g. Chai Ling's "hoping for bloodbath" comment), the Hong Kong 2019 protesters were also not actually about democracy, evidenced by the fact that rioters killed innocent people merely for disagreeing with them. The huge resemblance between Tiananmen 1989 and Hong Kong 2019 has led to various people, who were Tiananmen protesters at the time, to reevaluate. For example check this conversation by Daniel Dumbrill with a former Tiananmen protester. They discuss Tiananmen and how it resembles Hong Kong. youtu.be/eh2gLRUC6hc There are people believe that that if the Tiananmen protests succeeded in overthrowing the government, then China would have become a failed state,as they've seen what happened to countries that politically liberalized too quickly. It might be "democratic" but also stuck in poverty and disunity.
Tiananmen receives a lot of focus in the west but from my perspective that's for a big part politically motivated rather than from a true concern for human rights. Of course there are people who really care about human rights, but they go along with this push and one-sided narrative. In China, people don't tend to think about Tiananmen 1989. The protests were mostly about economy and quality of life. That has improved, the government delivered. The Tiananmen site is more known for its historical significance (past dynasties). Of course there is also censorship but I find that most people don't really care about that event since it's no longer relevant today.
A fellow Twitter user on the absurdity of Tiananmen remembrance: x.com/gonglei89/stat…
Very interesting again! So in your opinion this part is misleading? It puts students revendications first, or at least to the same level as workers ones. You're saying the main reasons for the protests were related to economy, not democracy, correct? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tian….
Just taking the death toll section en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tian… it's clear that getting to know what actually happened is no easy task. It's not related to China but rather to pretty much any event.
Oops, meant Uyghurs, not the french "Ouïghours"
Wikipedia is pretty bad at China-related political matters. Or any political matter related to NATO enemies. The text is often heavily biased towards NATO allies' point of view. Various actors keep close watch on key Wikipedia pages to make sure only their viewpoint is represented well. There have been a lot of edit wars. This problem goes pretty deep because of interactions with mainstream western media, which too is biased towards NATO allies POV. A lot of claims are "whitewashed" through the media: 1. Through some mainstream media, make a false, unsubstantiated or misleading claims, citing anonymous witnesses or intelligence agencies. 2. Other mainstream media cite the former. 3. Mainstream media cite each other or rehash old stuff. 4. Human rights NGOs cite mainstream media. 5. This creates the illusion of having tons of sources for a claim even though it's mostly rehashing of (1). All this stuff then gets cited on Wikipedia to justify a particular POV. This strategy is used a lot. Not only for Tiananmen but also for the Uyghur matter (which I'll get back to you about): if you dive deep into all the sources you'll see that it's just a few problematic real sources, and that most sources cite each other or rehash old stuff.
Here is a source that says there was no bloodshed on Tiananmen: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews… The source is even the US embassy, through leaked cables. I don't think editing Wikipedia will do any good, even with good sources. Most people reject my POV out of hand for "propaganda", fully convinced that what they already knew is the only valid truth and that everything else is just whitewashing of crimes. You're one of the few willing to listen.
Open version here: archive.ph/yiX5a
Here is a good, in-depth critique of the mainstream western narrative on Tiananmen: youtube.com/watch?v=idv8Ne…
Here's a recent investigation by journalist Nury Vittachi using various newly found documents. His report is in video and article format, linked from his Twitter thread. x.com/NuryVittachi/s…
Hey @honglilai, I’ve been thinking about our conversation while going through the content you sent. Honestly, at this point it seems quite likely that the version of events spread in the West is more dramatic than what actually happened. Thanks for sharing that!
I have half a draft in my notebook so you can expect it soon-ish but recovery demands a lot from my time. I spend a big part of the day either sleeping or researching the best ways to recover (like what foods I need to eat and that happen to be locally available...) while somehow helping out with taking care of kids too.
Regarding Uyghurs: there was a lot of extremist muslim terrorism in Xinjiang, more attacks than in Europe. Think of cars driving into crowds and people with swords hacking away at crowds in train stations. Extremists even infiltrated the education system, tried to hijack it to promote ethnic conflict. The attacks were not limited to Han Chinese: non-extremist Uyghurs and other ethnicities were also attacked. Goal of extremists is to separate Xinjiang and establish a Sharia state. The extremists operated under the banner of East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM), which until recently was classified even by the US as a terrorist organization. Before the Xinjiang story got big, the US was actively bombing Uyghur terrorists in e.g. Afghanistan. The govt responded with a massive deradicalization campaign, in part inspired by the French deradicalization system. This meant putting extremist suspects in reeducation centers ("reeducation" in its literal meaning, not in the "concentration camp euphemism" meaning). In such centers, suspects were indoctrinated into accepting extremism is wrong, secessionism is wrong, and were taught vocational skills. The latter because the govt believed poverty and lack of economic opportunity is a driver of extremism, so they wanted to solve it by improving job prospects. In parallel to that, there were also prisons for actual convicted terrorists. Govt also installed a massive security apparatus in Xinjiang. Lots of gates with mandatory ID checks, police checkpoints, cameras everywhere, etc. The govt claims this effort is very successful: there have been no terrorist attacks for many years since this effort started ~2017. Recently (about 2 years ago), they downscaled the security apparatus and closed all the reeducation camps, since they've fulfilled their purpose. They've switched gear from focusing on security to focusing on economic development. Western accusations started with "cultural genocide" (claims of erasure of culture, language, mosques), then evolved into claims of real genocide (concentration camps), then into forced labor, then into "museumification" (culture only exists as a curated clean version for tourists).
Evidence for all those claims are pretty shaky, and there are all sorts of inconsistencies. Examples: - there are a ton of Xinjiang travel videos on Youtube by westerners. Most westerners can visit Xinjiang visa free. It's plain to see that Uyghur language, mosques, culture and people are everywhere. - the common "1 million in concentration camps" claim came partly from the World Uyghur Congress, a Germany-based NGO with CIA funding. They said in an interview with journalist Max Blumenthal that they got this number from "western media", yet western media cites them as source for this number. - another source of the number came from a study that interviewed 8 people, asking them to guess how many people around them are imprisoned. They then extrapolated these numbers to the entire population. - many claims of atrocities come from unverifiable witness testimonies. This level of evidence would not hold up in court, but the media presents them as unquestionably truthful. One high profile case involves Tursunay Ziyawudun, who first claimed that there was no abuse in camps, but then later claimed all sorts of atrocities. Furthermore, earlier reports accidentally showed that her passport was renewed during her claimed detention period (illogical, why would abusive authorities renew a passport and let her travel during detention?). When too many people pointed out this inconsistency, the news outlet responded by removing the image of her passport. - Most forced labor, cultural genocide and genocide genocide claims come from Adrien Zenz who receives CIA funding. Most of his reports are highly problematic if you read them. He makes up numbers out of thin air. Or he uses Chinese sources to make variohs claims of abuse, but when you read those sources then those claims are not substantiated at all. For example he uses IUD data to make claims of forced sterilization, but then it turns out he produced an extra 0 and the IUD numbers were 10 times lower. When confronted about that, he just removed the claim from the report without updating the report's date or conclusion. No media outlet has picked this up either, none has retracted claims of forced sterilization. - The Australian think tank ASPI, who receives funding from the US military industrial complex, is behind many concentration camp claims. For example they use sattelite images of buildings with walls and barbed wire to claim, without further verification, that those are concentration camps. The problem is, many normal buildings in China have walls and barbed wire, it's a normal security measure. People have visited many of those sites, and they turn out to be hospitals, schools, factories, etc. - So far not a single photo or video of death or abuse has been produced, despite everybody having smartphones nowadays and leaking is very easy. There is also a lack of a refugee crisis in neighboring countries, given the scale of claims. The contrast is particularly stark with Gaza, even though there are more Uyghurs than Palestinians. - Nearly every Muslim country has sent delegations to Xinjiang. All of them (except Turkey) praise the economic and religious situation in Xinjiang. Critics say it's because these countries are bought by China money. But these countries are not known to value money over religion; certainly the west has not been able to buy their allegiance. This list of can go on. There are sinilar problems with the "leaked" Xinjiang Papers, or the "leaked" database of Xinjiang police officers, etc etc.
Xinjiang allegations are all over western media, to the point where it seems like there's a mountain of evidence. But if you look deeply you'll see they just rehash each other or just cite the same small number of problematic sources. It's the same tactic as what I mentioned before with Wikipedia: they whitewash problematic sources with a large number of middlemen (media outlets who rehash, NGOs that cite media outlets, etc). Dutch parliament members once said "Amnesty International confirms it" but when I emailed Amnesty they just gave me a list of media sources. To their credit, they also performedna few independent interviews, but they have the same methodology problem as other witness testimonies: nothing can be verified, it's a level of evidence that won't hold up in court, yet the claims are taken at face value uncritically.
So I believe the mainstream western narrative is misleading. But western narratives usually have a core of truth. What *is* known is that Chinese law enforcement is heavy-handed and brushes with large strokes. It's quite plausible that (given the scale) many innocent people have been caught in the crossfire, e.g., extremist suspects sent to reeducation camps even though they were not actually extremist. Or terrorist convicts who were innocent after all. Or abuse in some prisons. But even with such issues, "genocide" or even "forced labor" is not the right description, especially when one compares to how an *actual* genocide looks like in Gaza. Western governments and media also deny to even acknowledge the Xinjiang terrorism problem. They don't want the situation to be complex or nuanced. However, the same actors also claim that Israel has the right to defend itself and "have you condemned Hamas yet?". Nobody asks "have you condemned ETIM yet?". Not saying all that happened in Xinjiang is ok. Of course not. But the blatant double standards and rejecting nuance does everybody a disservice, does nothing to promote actual solutions, and even active harms human rights. It seems western governments are more interested in perpetuating the Xinjiang atrocity claims, than solving atrocities. For example by placing sanctions on Xinjiang, many Chinese companies have become afraid of hiring Uyghurs. This made many Uyghurs jobless, which could drive them back into extremism. Which is exactly what the US wants.
It has become a common stereotype in western forums to say that China mistreats minorities. "China isn't that bad, it lifted 800M people out of poverty" -> "yeah all those genocided minorities will disagree with you" 🤦 Minorities in China receive a lot of preferential treatment. They get extra points on exams, are generally treated more leniently, for example were exempted from the One Child Policy. A lot of mixed blood people choose to officially identify as a minority in order to get those benefits. The govt bans ethnic conflict and promotes the idea that all minorities are Chinese and equal. In fact the govt bans Han supremacy. For example all the ethnicities get to keep their traditional costumes, except Han. One of most popular actresses in China is Dilabra Dilmurat, Uyghur. Here is a trailer of a recent drama starring her, The Long Ballad. youtu.be/7ErUef6CNX4?si… It describes real events during the Tang Dynasty when there was a war between Tang and some Turkic khaganate. The story also has an Uyghur woman who was a prisoner of the Turks. Ironically, Dilmurat plays a Han princess instead of the Uyghur character. It's amazing with how much disinformation people can get away with. For example there is a prominent Uyghur activist called Arslan (forgot his last name) who frequently posts claims on Twitter. He claims for example that his father is imprisoned. After people did digging, turns out that it was his father in law, and he's alive, free and well in China even appearing on tv performances. Furthermore it turned out that his wife divorced him and his father in law blocked him on Wechat. Now Arlan remarried someone else and claims that his new father in law is imprisoned. 🙄
Here is. A CGTN documentary on the terrorism problem in Xinjiang. youtu.be/pqlzunwilGM?si… It shows recently declassified footage of terrorist attacks. These were originally classified because the govt wanted to prevent ethnic conflict. It was only years into the Xinjiang allegations that they decided to declassify these so that a documentary can be made.
Here are independent legal analyses of many of the Xinjiang allegations: cowestpro.co/papers.html
Thanks for sharing! Quick disclaimer about the CGTN doc: CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the CCP en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Glo… I think it is only fair to state that, as your argumentation repeatedly mentions US/CIA funding for the opposite side.
In France and Germany, Arte (@ARTEfr @ARTEde) is a respected "European public service channel dedicated to culture." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arte). Right after watching CGTN doc, I went to Arte and typed "China" to see what was available to watch at the moment.
The first one to show up was: "China: Forced Confessions" arte.tv/en/videos/0946…. It describes disturbingly closely what I suspected was happening in the CGTN doc regarding the play. Do you think I'm probably correct, or that my biases are talking?
Second one was: "China: Uyghurs in Danger" arte.tv/en/videos/0878…. This was is interesting as well. It mentions the "one million in camps" you were referring to, citing "several NGOs". It also displays several camp locations on a map and attempts to visit one, but fails.
If I'm not mistaken, sources aren't disclosed for these docs. Fortunately, the two authors/directors are on X. They are Angélique Forget and Antoine Védeilhé. Shawn Zhang, also mentioned, is on X as well. He worked on locating and listing camps medium.com/@shawnwzhang
@angeliqueforget @AntoineVedeilhe @shawnwzhang Would love to hear your insights and to read your sources! Especially the ones you used for the doc.
Responding to: 1951608258730291552
Responding to: 1951608384291020895
That is definitely a big factor. Among pro-China people, it's universally agreed that Chinese propaganda is very bad, even cringy, when targeting a western audience. Media culture is a big reason. I remember when the Xinjiang allegations started, the Dutch parliament summoned the Chinese ambassador for an explanation. The ambassador then showed videos of Uyghurs singing and dancing, implying everything is fine. Unsurprisingly, the Dutch were like "wtf is this propaganda" and dismissed it out of hand. But things are perceived very differently in China. That way of communicating is completely normal. Whats more, Uyghurs and also Chinese *actually* like dancing, and do it a lot. It's *actually* a legit sign of happiness and prosperity. I used to think it's the Chinese media's fault for not knowing how to target a western audience. But nowadays I'm not so sure anymore: what if it's the western audience's cynicism that's the problem?
Following tweets are responding to: 1951608481250746620
Maybe you can take a look at other CGTN or Chinese videos for a better understanding of what's stylistic or not. Here's something from CGTN but not political: Path to Prosperity: Greening China's Growth youtu.be/xdKLKixKAv0 It's independently confirmed on satellite imagery that China is among the biggest (maybe *the* biggest) contributor to planting trees in the past few decades.
Here's a trailer for a different drama. Different genre, in the cultivation fantasy category youtu.be/Ug4ChZxYMjI
Following tweets are responding to: 1951610007696310407
Re "one million" claim: one NGO source is Chinese Human Rights Defenders. nchrd.org/2018/08/china-… Table 1 lists 8 interviewees. They were asked how many people they *think* are in camps in their own town. Then they extrapolated those percentages to the entire population: "we estimate that [...] 1.3 million in the Southern Xinjiang sub-region, may have been forced to attend the day/evening sessions by mid-2018" Extrapolation from 8 people's guesses. "may" have. It's all guesswork, nothing is verified. "day/evening sessions" are lazily equated to "concentration camps" by others, even though the report itself makes a difference between "detained" and "day/evening sessions".
Another source for the "one million" claim is World Uyghur Congress. Here is independent investigative reporting on that organization. thegrayzone.com/2018/08/20/ins… > [Kanat] said that his organization, a top NED grantee, had supplied much of the information [about 1 million detained] the US government and Western media rely on about the alleged camps. Then later: > Kanat himself conceded that he did not know how many people were in the alleged camps, and that he was relying on “Western media estimates” to make his claim of one million. Circular referencing.
Max Blumenthal sums up the problems with the Xinjiang allegations: youtu.be/qZkxaEC1xjY
Responding to: 1951614581543244176