Dogyote

joined 2 years ago
[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 53 points 1 week ago (4 children)

So this guy helps create a technology that turns bots up to 11 and then he turns around to sell us a privacy invasive solution to the problem he created? What a fucking asshole.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this "do nothing wrong" tendency has something to do with intragroup power dynamics. I've often seen it used as a cudgel to knock down others within a group and stop mild dissent even though everyone is on the same team. Usually the most prolific wielder of the "do nothing wrong" cudgel rises to a position of some authority in the group, after which the group fragments because the person is insufferable but unassailable due to their moral superiority.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

.world is basically reddit. Sometimes I wonder why they left. Everywhere else has a delightfully different vibe.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 weeks ago

Simetimes I think the future will resemble the pre-internet era. AI content will be so easy to create that the zone will be flooded with shit, and only a few reputable sources will be trusted, like when there were only a few TV news channels.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 weeks ago

Said the pot to the kettle. I'm done too.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics.

That's not how a debt trap is supposed to work.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Well...you started with the idea that the financing of the port was a debt trap. I and others have already provided info stating otherwise. You appear to be moving the goalposts.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Said the pot to the kettle... your claim was refuted by several people. Maybe reconsider your stance?

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Absolutly. This would be a fun topic to dive into, but I don't know where to get raw, unbiased info about the deals (nor do I have time).

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Are those other capitalist countries building infrastructure or just extracting wealth? It often seems like only the latter while China is at least building infrastructure first. I'm not sure how predatory it is, but it seems less predatory than what's happened in the past.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I can't get past NYT's paywall, and it's the NYT, they're not going to give an unbiased assessment, but I found the wikipedia article. I'm failing to see how China "took the port back." Looks like a Chinese company bought an 85% stake into Hambantota International Port Group, an entity created by the Sri Lanken government to run the port. The agreement allows the Chinese company to operate the port for 99 years.

Then there's this bit:

Writing in 2023, academic and former UK diplomat Kerry Brown states that China's relationship to the Hambantota port has become the opposite of the theorized debt-trap modus operandi. Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics. As of at least 2024, the port is not a significant commercial success, although shipping through the port is increasing. 

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (20 children)

Okay gang, I need you to think a bit more critically than 'China Bad.' First, why was the term "debt collector" used? China lent money, now they're taking payments. Is that debt collecting, or just the second part of lending money? Is a mortgage lender a debt collector? That's a loaded term meant to give you a negative impression, cuz no one likes a debt collector except perhaps an American hospital.

Second, the countries agreed to the loans. Paying them back was expected and predictable. If payments can't be made, then the debt will be restructured, meaning the payment schedule will be modified so the debtor country can make payments.

Third, the money was often used to build a potentially money-making asset, like a port. If used correctly, the assest should pay for a decent chunk of the loan.

Forth, I see a lot of half baked comments like 'China will take the port back' or 'China will take the hospital.' You must first ask, with what will China take back an African port, or hospital, or whatever? They don't have the means. They're not going to park an aircraft carrier off the coast and drop bombs until the loan is repayed, because they can't. So what does China want? China doesn't want the fucking port, they want resources and friends with benefits.

China's basically going here's a loan, build a port to import goods for your people. Import from whoever you like, it's your port. Oh by the way we make the cheapest and best everything (cuz they do), we'd be happy to sell you whatever you want, like solar panels or EVs. We also need colbalt and the finest silicon sand to build you these awesome EVs and solar panels you want, so we'll buy that from your mines and use your cool new port to ship it. Here's the loan payment schedule. No payments for the first 5 years, then afterward you pay X per year for 20-30 years. Oh no, you're having trouble making payments? Well we benefit from you having that port too, so let's restructure that debt so your people don't revolt and get cozy with the US.

There's no fucking debt trap. That's just racist and moronic. 'Those sneaky Chinese tricked the backwards brown people with a loan they can't repay.' Plus you can't repossess a structure on the other side of the world without a credible threat of violence. China does not have the means. Economic coercion, sure, but the debtor agreed to that and they're not stupid.

view more: ‹ prev next ›