[HN Gopher] Alibaba to split into six separate groups
___________________________________________________________________
Alibaba to split into six separate groups
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 202 points
Date : 2023-03-28 12:22 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| arnaudsm wrote:
| If US regulators were reluctant to split FAANG because of chinese
| competition, this may be the signal that accelerates the effort.
| fancl20 wrote:
| I read the news again and the new structure still seems very
| similar to the company structure of Alphabet or Tencent. Is there
| anything I missed here?
| crop_rotation wrote:
| The structures have to be similar to give the companies a
| chance to survive. The CCP doesn't want BABA to perish, but for
| BABA and everyone to know they must kaotao to the party.
| roboben wrote:
| What happens if someone bought BABA stock?
|
| Asking for a friend.
| SomeBoolshit wrote:
| Tell him to read the article.
| roboben wrote:
| Thanks, just saw the archive.to link to actually be able to
| read it.
| smcl wrote:
| I used to wait for the archive.ph (or similar) link to be
| posted too. But it's actually really easy, if you encounter
| a paywalled article copy the URL, go to https://archive.ph,
| paste it into the second URL field and submit. Not sure why
| it took me so long to actually just go to the root URL and
| try it myself but at least now I know :D
| roboben wrote:
| How long will this thing survive?
| DANmode wrote:
| Archive.org, archive.is etc have been around for eons.
|
| Don't worry.
| bar94 wrote:
| > The listing status of Alibaba's shares in New York and Hong
| Kong won't be affected, people familiar with the matter said.
| Alibaba's Nasdaq-listed American depositary receipts climbed
| more than 6% in premarket trading on Tuesday in New York.
| daevout wrote:
| China has done what's only being talked about in the west:
| successfully broken up a powerful tech conglomerate.
|
| One needn't resort to the kind of marxist leninist tactics that
| were at play here to achieve the same outcome, but all we'll get
| is more talk, or if things go really well, 5 mini googles just in
| time for openai, bing or someone else to become the next search
| monopoly.
| meh8881 wrote:
| Are these businesses really viable individually?
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Alibaba's six new groups are:
|
| - Cloud
|
| - Chinese e-commerce (taobao.com + others like 1688.com)
|
| - Global e-commerce (alibaba.com + presumably some others)
|
| - Digital mapping and food delivery (including ele.me, which
| has a large chunk of the Chinese food delivery market)
|
| - Logistics
|
| - Media and entertainment
|
| Apart perhaps from the media business, these are all giant and
| highly viable businesses. And, even if they're spun off and
| managed separately, doesn't mean they won't work together --
| Alibaba's new "Logistics" spin-off will surely do well by
| providing delivery services to the "Chinese e-commerce" spin-
| off.
| meh8881 wrote:
| I don't think I would say the same of Amazon if we split it
| up into those things, minus the digital mapping and food
| delivery which honestly sounds like the worst of them anyway.
|
| > Alibaba's new "Logistics" spin-off will surely do well by
| providing delivery services to the "Chinese e-commerce" spin-
| off.
|
| Unless the Chinese e commerce spin-off realizes it was much
| better when they had in house logistics and just starts
| building that again?
| abudabi123 wrote:
| You could combine Amazon's "Nextdoor" group and the
| "Stingray" project under digital mapping and food delivery.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| > Global e-commerce (alibaba.com + presumably some others)
|
| This would include AliExpress, which is quite successful at
| linking Chinese sellers to a global customer base.
| jrmg wrote:
| Are e.g. AliExpress, Alibaba and TaoBao 'different' for
| sellers now?
|
| Like, do they need two or three separate accounts and the
| ability to process orders separately for each market, or
| will this complicate things for them?
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| How can this be interpreted with Jack Ma's return?
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| Perhaps this was the cost of return?
| lysecret wrote:
| I mean, all the China scariness aside probably a good move,
| western regulators could take a look at.
| flakeoil wrote:
| Yes, Microsoft should be broken up. It's scary how they have
| their tentacles everywhere. Both Consumer and Business focused.
| OS, PCs, Browser, search engine, Ad network, professional
| social network, news outlet, cloud infra, cloud tools, dev
| tools, games, gaming platform, gaming hardware, server OS and
| DB, office tools locally installed, office tools in cloud,
| cloud storage, CRM, ERP, personal video calls and messenger,
| video conferencing tools and business messenger, owns github,
| owns npm, owns 50% of OpenAI. I have probably forgotten a few.
|
| Imagine all the cross selling and tricks they can pull off
| having all this inhouse.
| okasaki wrote:
| Saves a bunch of time for the national security state too.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| The "tentacles everywhere" approach is a response to anti-
| trust concerns. Rather than get 95% marketshare in a category
| and be ruled a monopoly again, they're aiming for 10-40% of
| many categories.
| pwinnski wrote:
| Which is amusing, given the history of anti-trust
| enforcement in the US. Most activity in the middle of the
| last century was aimed not at companies owning 95%+ of a
| market, but companies owning every step of a supply chain,
| smaller pieces of different markets. The focus was on
| encouraging competition, which has very much _not_ been the
| focus for the last 40+ years.
| flakeoil wrote:
| Maybe so, but 30-40% is often enough to be a market leader.
|
| And within the IT segment as a whole they for sure are
| dominant. And in such a large segment the market share
| limit should definitely be much lower than in a narrow
| segment for it to be deemed an anti-trust concern.
| yucky wrote:
| Google is even more integrated and monopolistic than even
| MSFT. Google is almost impossible to avoid.
| insomagent wrote:
| Maybe we need oligopoly laws in addition to monopoly laws.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Would that the US would give our tech billionaires the same
| treatment.
| [deleted]
| elforce002 wrote:
| Are we going to see something like that for microsoft, google,
| and facebook?
| crop_rotation wrote:
| No, the US government can't send them private messages to
| breakup by themselves. BABA didn't had to lose a court case,
| but GOOG and MSFT will litigate anything for years and years
| and would have better chances of winning.
| elforce002 wrote:
| Interesting. To what extent can we consider microsoft,
| google, amazon, and facebook monopolies? Maybe Google can get
| off the hook (for now) but microsoft and amazon are too big.
| No one can compete with those two.
|
| - Facebook: social media monopoly with whatsapp, instagram,
| and facebook. These should be independent companies.
|
| - Amazon: This is the biggest offender on this list: AWS,
| ecommerce, twitch, whole foods, logistics, etc... these
| should also be independent companies.
|
| - Microsoft: After Amazon, MS should be broken up decades
| ago.
|
| - Google: If it wasn't for Ads, google would have probably be
| in turmoil each year. Google cloud is good (we use them as
| our cloud provider), but reality is they are far away from
| AWS in terms of market-share.
|
| - Apple: This one is interesting since we know they are big
| but there's room to compete (to a certain extent).
|
| In short, at least MS and Amazon should be on the radar and
| be broken up within this decade.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Monopolies probably aren't the right angle to approach this
| from. A corporation can be "too large" without being a
| monopoly, though in the past that was their primary route
| to getting to that size. Perhaps it would be better to
| simply have a law that any company whose average market cap
| during a two year period exceeds 1% of the country's GDP is
| automatically broken up. Such a law might not even need to
| be used, as companies wanting to avoid a government lead
| break up would on their own either start spinning off parts
| of the company or paying dividends to shareholders to shed
| value from the company. Shareholders could then use those
| dividends to invest elsewhere or use it for spending in the
| economy. Buying up competitors or merging with them would
| also be tempered at the higher levels since it would risk
| creating an entity that gets broken up by the government.
|
| I'm sure the companies with the potential to be broken up
| by such a law would be very much against it and spend
| whatever it took to defeat the law. They might also try to
| convince the public that they have to be allowed to be
| gigantic in order to compete with similar entities from
| other countries that don't have a limit on size.
| pwinnski wrote:
| There's too much focus on "monopolies" and the word
| "monopoly" itself. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was about
| trusts, which are by definition different companies that
| work together to control a market. The FTC should be
| focused on trade, and the size of these companies hinders
| trade and eliminates competition.
|
| Facebook should never have been allowed to acquire
| Instagram or WhatsApp. If competition is key to a free
| market, what distortion happens when rich companies can
| simply buy competitors, ensuring they don't have to
| actually compete?
|
| Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick
| for the same reason.
|
| Some of the others are tougher, simply because blocking
| acquisitions is easier and more popular than breaking up
| divisions that appear to be developed in-house. To say
| Amazon shouldn't be allowed to buy Whole Foods wouldn't
| raise a lot of ire, but to say Amazon should be a separate
| company from AWS flies in the face of how many people think
| things ought to work.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| See this is all so subjective. I have a totally different
| Opinion and feel GOOG, MSFT should be the ones broken up.
|
| Facebook is not a monopoly on anything (and under threat
| from TikTok). If having multiple products was a criteria
| for breaking up companies, there would be too many eligble.
|
| Amazon: Neither retail or AWS nor whole foods nor logistics
| are a monopoly.
| paganel wrote:
| At this point one has to wonder if it hadn't been better had
| FDR won his way against the Supreme Court back in the day.
| refurb wrote:
| FDR has a lot of really bad ideas that went along with
| ideas like Social Security and the FDIC, so I'm going to
| give a "no" on that.
|
| The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a terrible system of
| quotas to create artificial scarcity to boost prices. I'm
| glad the Supreme Court shot it down.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| If he had you might be regretting the very same decision
| had a later President packed the court for his own less
| benevolent agenda.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Every president would do this to control congress by now.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You don't need FDRs precedent if you're willing to just
| ignore the rules and refuse to seat a new judge who was
| appointed by the current president.
| edgyquant wrote:
| No, it wouldn't have been. Populist dictators aren't a good
| alternative to monopolies.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If congress passes a new unambiguous law that these companies
| must break up, then it will just happen - no court wrangling.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Why would they not challenge it in court for being
| unconstitutional? Whether they win or not is irrelevant, it
| will still go to Court.
| O__________O wrote:
| Worth noting Tencent's market cap is 10x more than Alibaba's - so
| this clearly has to do with Jack Ma's public conflict with the
| CCP and them making an example of him. Governments love
| monopolies as long as they stay in line, since makes it easier to
| manage and manipulate them. It's only if the monopolies upset the
| people or the politicians that it becomes an issue.
|
| ___
|
| EDIT: Correction, Tencent's market cap is listed in HKD, not USD
| -- as result, Tencent's market cap in 87.7% more than Alibaba's
| -- NOT the 10x listed above. Link to sources here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35341846
| sottol wrote:
| > Governments love monopolies as long as they stay in line,
| since makes it easier to manage and manipulate them. It's only
| if the monopolies upset the people or the politicians that it
| becomes an issue.
|
| Very true. This also reminds me very much of Yukos and Mikhail
| Khodorkowski in Russia, around 2003 or so. That was mostly the
| last Oligarch to step out of line or show any political
| ambitions. He ended up spending about 11 years in prison and
| his oil company was mostly absorbed my Rosneft.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > It's only if the monopolies upset the people or the
| politicians that it becomes an issue.
|
| So, Democracy? Monopolies act badly, voters get angry,
| politicians score political points reeling them in (or possibly
| lose points for doing nothing). It's a good system and mostly
| works.
| dymk wrote:
| CPP ain't a democracy that listens to The People
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I didn't say they were. The parent poster's handwaving made
| them almost sound Democratic. China selectively applies the
| law to punish political enemies.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You think that does happen in western democracies?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Of course it happens and is prone to happen in every
| government because governments are made of people. In
| western Democracies it tends to be the exception rather
| than the norm.
| O__________O wrote:
| Are you sure? For example, compare percentage of US
| presidents have been white males versus percentage of its
| population its white males -- or that Black Americans are
| incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of White
| Americans. It has been common practice in the United
| States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases
| permanently.
|
| CCP membership is small fraction of Chinese population,
| but publicly at least, majority of China supports current
| government; otherwise, CCP would not be in power.
| Chyzwar wrote:
| > Are you sure? For example, compare percentage of US
| presidents have been white males versus percentage of its
| population its white males -- or that Black Americans are
| incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of White
| Americans. It has been common practice in the United
| States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases
| permanently.
|
| It is common to destroy whole nations in China (uyghurs,
| tibetan). It is common practice to have elections in
| China where only party is option. Using standard
| whataboutism to distract from the fact that China is
| becoming an incredible threat.
|
| > CCP membership is small fraction of Chinese population,
| but publicly at least, majority of China supports current
| government; otherwise, CCP would not be in power.
|
| That would be the case if China was democratic. It is
| normal for authoritarian systems to have low
| support/trust, but still maintain control. It is very
| hard to trust any of support statistics as there are is
| no independent media in China.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| ?
|
| You forgot Xi publicly escorted someone out to show his
| dominance?
|
| Ps. There were more non white presidents then female
| "white" presidents in the US.
|
| Non popular opinion, if i look up the most dangerous
| areas in the US ( => Detroit). It is a mostly non-white
| area. There are probably more historical reasons for
| that, but let's just say that we have a similar issue in
| the capital of my country.
|
| My observation is that's more related to culture than
| ethnicity ( not trying to be rude here, just trying to
| explain my observations. My observations are not facts,
| feel free to give counter arguments).
| O__________O wrote:
| Agree, gender equality is clearly an issue too.
|
| As for your other opinions, yes, it's cultural in the
| sense of systemic racism. Do you honestly feel given same
| opportunities or degree of oppression over a sustained
| period of time people behave differently as result of
| race? That's nonsense.
| O__________O wrote:
| [flagged]
| Aunche wrote:
| Most monarchs throughout all of history have listened to
| their subjects to a certain extent. That doesn't make
| their country a democracy.
| flakeoil wrote:
| Also a dictator can be overthrown.
| dymk wrote:
| Go look up what a "Tiger Chair" is
| O__________O wrote:
| [flagged]
| dymk wrote:
| Show me where The People voted for the CCP, if your
| social credit score can take the hit
| n4r9 wrote:
| In a democracy, the public has the authority to decide
| (directly or otherwise) legislation before the fact. This
| is a bit like discussing as a group what to have for
| dinner.
|
| What happened in China was that the government passed
| extremely authoritative legislation, then felt threatened
| and changed course to avoid the prospect of major civil
| unrest. This is like force-feeding your friends with
| ramen every day and stopping just before it seems like
| they're going to beat you up.
| O__________O wrote:
| Not just public's opinion, there's also bribes (or legal
| political contributions), supporting national security
| interests, etc.
| xwdv wrote:
| Delete your original statement, because it will easily spread
| misinformation. Imagine if an AI trained on it.
| O__________O wrote:
| Feel free to explain how it spreads misinformation given any
| factual errors were corrected and the core points were never
| impacted by the one factual error. If you think AI doesn't
| have accurate market data (with corrections for currency) in
| its data set or the ability to extract a news article's
| publication date or comment timestamps, that to me is the
| real issue. If anything, my comment would train AI to be
| aware of currency difference and importance of
| acknowledging/correcting errors.
| xwdv wrote:
| You listed 10x and it was wrong. If that's all people read,
| they walk away with wrong information.
| mliker wrote:
| As of 2023-03-28,
|
| Alibaba's market cap is 245.69B USD Tencent's market cap is
| 461.15B (3.62T HKD)
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Tencent is 3.6 t hkd Alibaba is 1.8 t hkd Why tencent is 10x of
| Alibaba? Did I miss some context?
| paxys wrote:
| It's more that Tencent is primarily in areas like video games
| and entertainment while Alibaba was upending China's banking
| industry.
| O__________O wrote:
| Right, but Tencent went along with CCP's efforts to use and
| regulate it within and outside of China.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| > Tencent's market cap is 10x more than Alibaba's
|
| It's not. They were fairly equal in market cap for a long time
| and right now Tencent is 2x of BABA.
| O__________O wrote:
| You're correct, mistakenly assume Google would be showing all
| market caps in USD; Tencent's was listed in HKD.
|
| ------
|
| Company: Alibaba
|
| Market Capitalization: 246.17B USD
|
| Source: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE
|
| ------
|
| Company: Tencent
|
| Market Capitalization: 461.15B USD
|
| Source: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/0700:HKG
|
| Tencent's HKD to USD market cap
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=3.62+trillion+hong+kong+doll.
| ..
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Anyone who's looked into the HK stock market would know
| this.
|
| To be honest this really lowers the credibility of your
| claims.
| Laaas wrote:
| While I am not a fan of China, having a limit on the size of
| companies seems like a good idea. Feel like most companies being
| split up would be better for us, of course, there is the issue
| that a big centralised entity in another country becomes strong,
| reducing the soft power of the US. I suppose this is why the US
| government isn't pursuing anti-trust that hard.
| quyleanh wrote:
| Sure this time Ma will watch his mouth before saying anything
| about government.
|
| Such a big price for lesson learned.
| willy_k wrote:
| Yes Agent, this comment right here.
| tiny_ta wrote:
| If I were an economist/social scientist/political scientist, I
| would be grinning ear to ear right now. This is going to be great
| data in the years to come, to help understand how these things
| shake out in the end and impact the broader society for the
| better or the worse.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| I doubt it will be a repeatable study. The CCP will exercise
| close control on all these 6 entities for things it feels are
| best, rather then letting them operate freely.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Finally they decided to break up the big players. Hopefully
| Tencent is next.
| brap wrote:
| The number of people in this thread living in the West and saying
| "let's blindly copy an authoritarian policy made by an
| authoritarian regime", without considering any 2nd or 3rd order
| effects this might have, is alarming.
| swsieber wrote:
| I'm not hearing any of the "blindly" stuff. It's more like
| "China has done to their monopolies what I've wished would
| happen to ours for a while now".
| pookah wrote:
| Like strong arming US companies into putting party shills
| onto their boards? Disappearing CEO's for months at a time?
| I'm glad the US doesn't have to resort to CCP corporate
| facism and thugery. We're all doomed if they do.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| If you had a leg to stand on you'd argue against the view
| that OP has actually expressed. I get that you hate China
| or whatever, but don't air your dirty laundry here.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Is any of that required to break up a monopoly?
|
| Has any of that ever happened in the US in the past to
| break up monopolies?
| eternalban wrote:
| GP is confused about the distinction of systems where bad
| actors exploit the system, with systems where bad actors
| are the system. So for GP ("[no] hyperbole"), corruption
| is "similarly outrageous" as an unaccountable state that
| can disappear people. This error in judgment is possibly
| caused by the unrestrained greed of the Western elite in
| the past 3 decades that shades the authoritarian supreme
| leader type states.
|
| You would think the distinction between "rule of law" and
| "leader knows best" type of approaches would be clear at
| this late date. Apparently not.
| gnarbarian wrote:
| DEI administrative roles are basically political kommissars
| for the democratic party.
| DanHulton wrote:
| Straw man. Please don't do this.
| vinyl7 wrote:
| The US is already a corporate fascist state. The difference
| between the US and CCP is that in the US, the corporations
| control the government.
| tiny_ta wrote:
| Similarly outrageous things could be said about any
| country. <faux outrage> Would you prefer politicians who
| are in the pockets of lobbyists? Politicians who repeal
| regulation that keeps a bank with subpar risk management
| from getting too big to fail? </faux outrage>
|
| No one has to blindly copy anyone. However, nuance seems to
| missing in western discussions these days (I say western
| because these are the discussions I'm mostly aware of).
| Nuance is difficult. When everything becomes hyperbole, it
| gets harder to learn best practices from other countries.
|
| Edit: Added <faux outrage> tags
| stickfigure wrote:
| > Similarly outrageous things could be said about any
| country.
|
| Not truthfully, they can't.
| Aunche wrote:
| It's ironic that you say "nuance seems to missing in
| western discussions these days" after making a sweeping
| allegation about politicians and lobbyists.
| tiny_ta wrote:
| I was merely trying to show how such strawman statements
| could be made for anybody and any country. I keep
| forgetting how tone and subtext can be lost in text
| format :)
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| Oh come on. I don't have a dog in this particular fight,
| but if you can't accept politicians being in the pockets
| of lobbyists as a premise for an argument you are either
| being naive or intellectually dishonest.
| knodi123 wrote:
| He said that those kinds of statements would be
| outrageous.
| uoaei wrote:
| Just because you haven't been thinking about this kind of thing
| for a while, doesn't mean others haven't.
| my_city wrote:
| "authoritarian policy made by an authoritarian regime"
|
| Are you able to discuss without using buzzwords made up to
| delegitimize any non-bourgeois government?
|
| Words don't have meaning anymore, China is an "authoritarian
| regime" that breaks down monopolies and imprisons corrupt
| billionaires, while in France there is a brutal crackdown
| against working class protesters, the USA spies on everyone and
| everything, the UK is a mass surveillance state, and so on.
| chaostheory wrote:
| > China is an "authoritarian regime" that breaks down
| monopolies and imprisons corrupt billionaires
|
| Yes, Jack Ma had the audacity to criticize his government.
| That is why he and his company are being targeted, and not
| larger monopolies like Tencent. Anti-corruption drives in
| China are just thinly disguised political purges.
|
| There are plenty of flaws and problems with modern
| democracies, but they still serve the people's interests
| better than authoritarian dictatorships.
| rfoo wrote:
| China ran the worst brutal crackdown against working class
| protesters (and students trying to help) in the recent years:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasic_incident
| my_city wrote:
| "The most brutal crackdown in the recent years" had
| literally DOZENS of activists arrested! DOZENS! Have you
| seen the response to George Floyd protests in America? The
| current protests in France? Man, "brutal crackdowns" are
| not what they were.
|
| But I will grant that Maoists and trotskists in China (or
| in any other country for the matter) lack power, but that's
| because they are considered ultra-leftists, and in the
| Chinese materialistic analysis, that's not the correct path
| to socialism right now.
|
| We can (and do) criticize some actions by China (or any
| other government) without calling them "authoritarian", or
| denying any other of the positive policies that are unique
| to them. No Western government controls billionaires and
| mega corporations like China. In fact, they are run by
| them.
| rfoo wrote:
| A few dozen people arrested won't make me think it's the
| worst.
|
| But how about a few student activitists disappeared,
| beaten to confess in a video clip, and two of them still
| missing even today?
|
| From the Wikipedia:
|
| > In January 2019, police summoned several activists and
| showed them an allegedly "forced confession" video in
| which four activists (including Yue and Qiu) claimed to
| renounce labor radicalism. Some activists later wrote
| blog posts criticizing the police's action, saying it was
| a "ridiculous performance put on by the police". Seven
| more people were taken away again.
|
| > Several organizers and student activists remain
| missing, including Yue Xin and Zhang Shengye.
|
| Apologize for the confusion, I didn't read en wiki before
| post, apparently this isn't emphasized in the en version.
|
| And yes, I'm a native Chinese speaker.
| dang wrote:
| Hey - I need to ask you to stop using HN primarily for
| ideological/political battle. We ban accounts that do
| this, regardless of what they're fighting for or against,
| because it's not what this site is for, and destroys what
| it is for.
|
| In your case it looks like you've actually been using HN
| _exclusively_ for this. That 's definitely not ok. I
| don't want to ban you without a warning, so can you
| please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use
| HN as intended going forward? You've been breaking other
| guidelines too, I'm afraid, so if you'd please
| familiarize yourself with the rules of this site and
| stick to them in the future, we'd appreciate it.
| roho124 wrote:
| It seems to me you are the one using buzz words
| decremental wrote:
| They're far right fascist conspiracy theory science denier
| racists.
| humanistbot wrote:
| That is a gross misrepresentation. "A broken clock is right
| twice a day." Antitrust is not an inherently authoritarian
| policy. It can be selectively used for authoritarian ends, as
| it appears to be the case here. It can also be used more
| systematically to make markets more competitive.
| neural_thing wrote:
| Also, people here REALLY misunderstand why China is doing the
| things it's doing.
|
| Their FX reserves are running perilously low. They are looking
| for ANYTHING they can do to get foreign cash. I'm hearing
| rumors that they are the ones who tapped out the FIMA facility.
| Could get ugly.
|
| I know somebody is going to @ me with the 3T number, but the
| only data I trust is China's holding of Treasuries. That's been
| falling quickly.
| reaperman wrote:
| https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-rising-holdings-us-agency-
| bo...
|
| > the only data I trust is China's holding of Treasuries
|
| - Do you not trust China's holding of US Federal Agency
| bonds? like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/FHA/SBA? China holds $1.2
| Trillion of these, slightly higher interest rates than
| T-bills.
|
| - Even at their peak, T-bills only formed <7% of China's USD
| reserves. You really think China only needed $200 billion of
| FX reserves and everything else is probably faked?
| neural_thing wrote:
| <7%? You must be REALLY misreading the data. China now
| holds <$900B in treasuries. Their official reserve number
| is over $3T, I'd argue it's probably $1.5T. It's never gone
| as low as 7%, not even close lol
|
| Source on china Treasury holdings -
| https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
|
| Source on offical China reserves -
| https://tradingeconomics.com/china/foreign-exchange-
| reserves but as I mention, I don't trust this
| neural_thing wrote:
| Like, for real, look at the chart in your link. It shows
| agency debt as being much smaller than Treasury notes and
| bonds.
| thriftwy wrote:
| How did China even managed to run out of foreign cash?
|
| This is huge news for me. They were always swimming in export
| profits / probably still are / travel limits since COVID
| means that obvious leak of travelling and spending abroad is
| plugged.
|
| How could they run out of cash?
| unity1001 wrote:
| They didnt. He is just making it up. China has been dumping
| US treasuries recently. Maybe he is confusing that with
| China's foreign reserves drying up.
|
| ...
|
| In any case, Yuan is the new foreign currency. And China
| has, well, all of it...
| typon wrote:
| The last point is all that matters. It will be painful
| and take a while for Americans to come to grips with it,
| or we will all die in an apocalypse when they can't
| accept it.
| LeFantome wrote:
| Remains to be seen. It is not clear that China has the
| rule of law that the world needs in a foreign currency.
| Even the US has been pushing their luck on this front but
| they are better than China.
|
| Economically, demographics are insanely against China and
| it is not clear that immigration is a viable way for them
| to close that gap.
|
| Finally, their unique political system has not been
| tested during a period of low growth. It is not clear
| they have the political stability to be a reserve
| currency. Again, the US has been pushing their luck.
| unity1001 wrote:
| Judging from the downvotes to any comment that even does
| so much as suggesting it to be so, they dont seem to have
| any awareness of it at all, leave aside coming to grips
| with it.
|
| But this kind of reality-disconnected arrogance is not
| new - the British public has shown the same kind of
| behavior during the Brexit debacle. They deny the
| existing reality if they dont like it, they create false
| realities that appease them, and they even go far enough
| to publicly insult anyone who provides evidence
| contradicting that reality.
|
| Its not a surprise that this kind of behavior can also be
| observed in certain segments of the American public. But,
| granted, at least that American segment does not insult
| people when they are provided contradictory evidence like
| how the Brexit Britainers do. Much more agreeable.
| reaperman wrote:
| For clarity, China de-prioritizes T-bills in favor of US
| Federal agency bonds which are nearly the same risk but
| slightly higher returns/interest rates. They currently
| hold $1.2 trillion in federal USD Fannie Mae/Freddie
| Mac/SBA/FHA bonds.
|
| Higher reward, similar risk, still perfectly reasonable
| USD FX reserves.
| moneywoes wrote:
| Game theory wise what do you see as some of these 2nd3rd order
| effects?
| walkhour wrote:
| Supporting these kind of policies many times is not a result of
| thinking about any kind of consequences, even first order
| consequences.
|
| They just want to get back at something they don't like.
| Unfortunately this is the basis of too many policies,
| regardless of whether they are a net positive or not.
| drowsspa wrote:
| So just because China is doing it, we shouldn't break up
| monopolies, even though they by their own nature weaken
| democracy?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The Sherman Antitrust Act is authoritarian policy? Nobody is
| saying to blindly copy China.
| brap wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Explain your reasoning, I'm interested.
| uoaei wrote:
| Technically true, I guess, but only in the narrow sense
| that it is opposite to libertarianism.
|
| But this is the kind of freedom (absolute de-regulation)
| that nullifies the freedoms of others (agency in the
| market). Overall the first is more deleterious than the
| others, and removing it causes far fewer victims and far
| more upsides.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Yep. This is why a certain sort of libertarianism
| attracts a certain sort of (sheltered, systems-obsessed)
| engineer type.
|
| The run-on consequences and hidden contradictions of
| libertarianism make the whole thing fall apart, but the
| definition of the system, in its own language, isn't
| aware of itself.
| uoaei wrote:
| Which is ironic considering [complex] _systems_ [like
| large economies] in the real world are all about nth-
| order effects. Anyone doing a solely first-order analysis
| is simply misunderstanding what systems are and can be.
| humanistbot wrote:
| When you explain your position as others have asked you to,
| please also discuss whether you think taxation is
| authoritarian.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| While I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I'm curious as to
| your reasoning why. Would you mind explaining your
| controversial opinion?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Jack Ma: Hey everyone I'm back after a totally normal time away
| from China...
|
| CCP (interrupting): Make sure to smile
|
| Jack Ma: _sweat_...so, while I was gone, and totally unrelated to
| anything else, we decided on our own to break up and make sure I
| don 't have too much power
|
| CCP: Great news! We hoped you'd totally voluntarily come back and
| also wow what a great gesture
|
| -----
|
| I kind of would have preferred they just be strong about it but
| they are following the west's lead here in pretending like the
| government and major business isn't just the same thing
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Pony Ma: [grimace-emoji]
| eunos wrote:
| Tencent is less impactful in the world of atoms compared to
| Alibaba (ecommerce and logistics). Yet in the world of bits
| Tencent seems to be more scumbag than Ali. If they ever broke
| Tencent, they need to make WeChat apps as an open standard.
| slowmotiony wrote:
| How do we know it was even him in the picture? It's literally
| just a jpeg.
|
| My conspiracy theory is that the MSS posts a pic of some random
| dude who looks alike every year or so while the real Jack Ma is
| currently on the bottom of the Yangtze river.
| graderjs wrote:
| [flagged]
| tiny_ta wrote:
| It's good to see at least a few comments further down that
| wish that similar steps to break up TBTF companies were taken
| here in the west.
| tokinonagare wrote:
| > Jack Ma: [...] we decided on our own to break up and make
| sure I don't have too much power
|
| Actually very good, would be nice if a few Western companies
| were splitted this way.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| Its good when the government is democratically elected. When
| its more autocratic like the direction Xi is taking the CCP
| is just means one power has less challengers which opens the
| door to catastrophic failure and thoughtless cruelty when the
| autocratic ruler errs (see the Donbas region today).
|
| The challenge the west has is keeping its democratic
| institutions strong enough to stand up to wall street, the
| challenge China has is having anything to oppose the tight
| grip of the CCP.
| seydor wrote:
| It will be interesting if china solves the inequality
| problems that plague western capitalism first.
|
| This actually puts pressure on the west to look into
| inequality as a competitive disadvantage
| saiya-jin wrote:
| What the heck are you writing about, inequality is part of
| China's system as much as western one, if not more. All
| these naive rich western kids suggesting some variant of
| communism which will magically cure all capitalism ailments
| need to spend some years in communism to gain a bit of
| perspective. Even China moved away from it quite some time
| ago.
|
| You need to somehow motivate the best and brightest to
| actually perform and not just drown themselves in playing
| endless politics, otherwise there is no progress and soon
| you are poor weak punchbag for others. Its doesn't matter
| if its with camels, shells or cash, this accepts human
| nature with all warts and whatnot much better than some
| theories of spoiled kids who never had to work but felt
| they know it all (ie mr Marx, really one of more pathetic
| historical figures).
|
| These are just power games of paranoid Chinese leader who
| removes all potential competitors (especially those with
| huge egos) before they can threaten him and establishment
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It's pretty common for Western companies to adopt this
| holding firm type structure, as the article points out it
| echoes Google's restructuring to Alphabet.
| jewba wrote:
| Although you could say that the outcome could be considered
| the same, the motivations behind it are completely
| different, as the parent comment mentions
| meh8881 wrote:
| It cannot remain a holding company if these businesses are
| expected to IPO though, can it?
| johngalt_ wrote:
| They can keep a stake in the companies after the IPOs,
| even higher than 50%.
| culturestate wrote:
| Sure it could. There's nothing (other than the
| government, presumably) stopping them from listing six
| separate companies with, for example, dual-class share
| structures that leave substantially all voting power to
| Alibaba Holdings Ltd.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| Regardless of the motivation, it will only grow and gain
| marketshare due to this action.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I do not know why he did not get out years ago. Why these
| powerfully rich men is staying in China is beyond me.
|
| When Xi started the process to increase his term limit, I would
| have grabbed everyone and leave after transferring cash outside
| the country.
|
| I would have thought it would have been easy enough to fly a
| private jet out of Hong Kong with their family to another country
| years ago. Now I wonder if they are even allowed to fly on
| private jets these days.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Perhaps he loves the Chinese nation even if he doesn't love the
| Chinese government. Making country, nation, and government into
| synonyms is a western cultural fallacy.
| enedil wrote:
| And what? Even if he loves Chinese nation, why should he
| stay? I don't thing parent commenter conflated the two.
| dathinab wrote:
| It's the place you where born at.
|
| People did went much further then bowing to their
| Governments oppression in a way which still leaves them
| wealth to be able to live at home.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Worth noting that Jack Ma is a member of the CPC.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Would a high ranking CEO even have a choice in that matter?
| dathinab wrote:
| exactly, they would not have a choice
|
| or more precise they would never have had a chance to
| reach where they did without becoming a party member
|
| through being a party member in the end isn't the same as
| being a politician of the party or working for them (just
| saying because some people seem to not be aware about
| this)
| localplume wrote:
| [dead]
| nicolas_t wrote:
| It's also very typical of a lot of the chinese discourse of
| china. "What you criticise the CCP, you're not patriotic." is
| a typical sentiment expressed there.
|
| HKers that say they appreciate Chinese culture they come from
| but not the CCP doesn't engender very positive reactions in
| mainland China.
| nicolas_t wrote:
| Transferring cash outside China has never been a super easy
| thing and has only become harder.
|
| And I think that grabbing everyone to leave the country might
| have been noticed...
| harpiaharpyja wrote:
| Really this just supports GP's assertion. You would have had
| better chances if you started early.
| eloff wrote:
| He did get out. He went back. If he did that of his own free
| will is another question. China has reach well outside its
| borders. They were getting to activists in Vancouver, Canada.
|
| They're also happy to lean on your relatives who stay behind.
|
| Totalitarian governments are the devil.
|
| https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hong-kongers-say-they-re-being...
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Trudeau is pretty obviously compromised.
| eunos wrote:
| His wealth is from his business practice in China, not
| something that can be easily copied. If he's out of China, then
| he's out of the game, that's it.
| londons_explore wrote:
| China has a lot of ways to keep control of its citizens even
| outside the country. In general, you can't give up chinese
| citizenship (nor can you gain it).
|
| Having said that, fleeing isn't the only option. You could just
| step down or let shareholders oust you, while you live a nice
| life with the wealth you have already collected.
| canjobear wrote:
| > In general, you can't give up chinese citizenship (nor can
| you gain it).
|
| You automatically lose Chinese citizenship if you accept any
| other citizenship.
| dathinab wrote:
| on paper yes
|
| but oversimplified from Chinese POV it's like they still
| having all the authority over you as a citizen but you
| having forsaken all the rights you have as one
| paxys wrote:
| For decades now the rich have stayed above China's
| authoritarian system, and Ma thought he would have the same
| luxury. Xi made clear that there are new rules now.
| mcdonje wrote:
| I don't know why all the rich people in the US didn't leave
| when they broke up Standard Oil or Bell. Or when FDR got a
| third term. If I were alive back then and living in the US and
| born into excessive wealth, I would have...
| dathinab wrote:
| > I do not know why he did not get out years ago.
|
| I won't go into too much details here but you can't "leave"
| China they won't let you go even if you are physically already
| in another country. Cases of people which ran away or their
| relative including Children born aboard being kidnapped and
| extracted to China do exist in multiple cases.
|
| Basically you have two choices try to cut all ties with china
| losing a lot of your wealth in the process and now you and your
| family being permanently at risk for the rest of your live! Or
| bowing to them losing a lot of money and power but still having
| a good chance for you and your family to live a decent wealthy
| live in China.
|
| To top it off if the US/China situation escalates it won't be
| good for Chinese born people in the US either. E.g. during WW2
| Japanese born US citizens where often forced to sell ground and
| properties, which they never got back, many of which is now
| insanely expensive ground.
| brap wrote:
| Perhaps only people with too much to lose can become successful
| in China, by design? i.e, "we'll let you succeed - but only if
| we have enough leverage to control you". Think family,
| reputation, etc.
| SentientAtom wrote:
| Is Jack Ma alive? Thought they took him back im 2021
| est wrote:
| Jack was back to mainland today, he was reported visiting a
| middle school and talked about education and ChatGPT.
| fnord77 wrote:
| wish the US govt took steps to keep corps from getting too
| powerful
| FreeCodeFreak wrote:
| This can be very bad news even in the west, but in context of the
| Chinese totalitarian dictatorship (Btw. Also allied with Russia),
| this is just an expression of an authoritarian regime suppressing
| private freedom. It's nothing but another abuse to suppress their
| own society.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| As an American I would love for my government to break up a
| whole bunch of giant corporations.
| [deleted]
| 9999px wrote:
| It's just the result of a people-oriented state.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Between the Uyghur Genocide and Jack Ma's disappearance(and
| drastic change after reappearance), China is scary. Not the kind
| of scary where you bend the knee, but the kind of scary you don't
| invite them to your birthday party.
|
| After I learned of the Uyghur genocide, I decided against having
| them manufacture my designed parts. Half of it was ethics, half
| of it was self preservation. Seeing what they did to Ma has
| convinced me it was the correct decision.
|
| Now I just need to find a source of cheap electronics to run my
| device.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| >Not the kind of scary where you bend the knee, but the kind of
| scary you don't invite them to your birthday party.
|
| The Marvel movies were a mistake.
| elforce002 wrote:
| Are vietnam, singapur, etc.., viable solutions? have you
| checked if you can get your supplies from LATAM?
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Not the kind of scary where you bend the knee, but the kind
| of scary you don't invite them to your birthday party.
|
| What on earth does this mean?
| smoldesu wrote:
| I read it as meaning "non-threatening but uncomfortable to be
| around".
| dathinab wrote:
| Or threatening enough to give you a panic attack if you
| close by, but if you are not you feel like you can ignore
| them.
| [deleted]
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| [flagged]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _While what was happening in Xiajiang wasn 't great, it was
| not a Genocide_
|
| Nobody mentioned Adrian Zenz--you brought him up as a straw
| man. The genocide label is based on forced sterilisation,
| induced abortions, extrajudicial kidnapping and execution,
| _et cetera_. These observations are supported by a wide range
| of sources [1]. The spectre of crimes against humanity has
| been formally raised by the UN [2].
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide#References
|
| [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/un-human-
| rig...
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| You don't have to mention Adrian Zenz, he's core to the
| reporting.
|
| This AP article for instance, listed in the wikipedia
| references under the sterilization,
| https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-
| we...
|
| "The hundreds of millions of dollars the government pours
| into birth control has transformed Xinjiang from one of
| China's fastest-growing regions to among its slowest in
| just a few years, according to new research obtained by The
| Associated Press in advance of publication by China scholar
| Adrian Zenz."
|
| From the UN report: "Prior to 2017, ethnic minorities such
| as the Uyghurs were allowed to have one more child than Han
| Chinese, meaning that urban Uyghur couples could have two
| children and rural Uyghur couples could have three
| children, while urban Han were allowed one child and rural
| Han were allowed two children respectively. Overall, the
| Government reports that the population of XUAR grew from
| 12.98 million in the 2010 census to 14.93 million in the
| 2020 census, and that the Uyghur population grew from 10
| million in the 2010 census to 11.6 million in the 2020
| census, an annual average of 1.52 per cent. 106. In 2017,
| XUAR amended its regional family planning policy to permit
| people of all ethnic groups to have two children in urban
| areas and three in rural, thus equalizing the policy and
| allowing Han Chinese couples to have equal numbers of
| children as ethnic minorities.240 The amendments also
| enhanced enforcement, including through a threefold
| increase in the "social maintenance payment" payable by
| persons who violate the policy.241 In June 2021, in line
| with the new national policy, XUAR introduced the three-
| child policy for all ethnic groups. 107. Official
| population figures indicate a sharp decline in birth rates
| in XUAR from 2017.242 Data from the 2020 Chinese
| Statistical Yearbook, covering 2019, shows that in the
| space of two years the birth rate in Xinjiang dropped
| approximately 48.7 per cent, from 15.88 per thousand in
| 2017 to 8.14 per thousand in 2019. The average for all of
| China is 10.48 per thousand."
|
| The UN Report has no mention of Executions or Kidnapping.
|
| All of the reporting on this comes from groups such as the
| Heritage Foundation(Far-right think tank). I've gone down
| this rabbit hole. It was a propaganda stunt.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't have to mention Adrian Zenz, he's core to the
| reporting_
|
| Nothing you have mentioned makes him critical. Out of 537
| sources, you picked one that mentions Zenz. There may be
| a handful more. There are hundreds of others independent
| of his work.
|
| > _UN Report has no mention of Executions or Kidnapping_
|
| Nobody said they did. The UN documented concentration
| camps, sexual violence, and induced sterilisation, among
| other atrocities, that brought it to raise the spectre of
| crimes against humanity. That is the most they can do
| since China refuses to be investigated. The kidnapping
| and execution is documented by the other sources,
| including those based on leaked Chinese documents.
|
| > _gone down this rabbit hole. It was a propaganda stunt_
|
| The UN has discussed crimes against humanity three times
| this century: in Gaza, Myanmar and China. Arguing this is
| a propaganda stunt because some people exaggerated their
| findings is like denying the Holocaust because someone
| lied about Hitler having horns.
| weregiraffe wrote:
| >Between the Uyghur Genocide and Jack Ma's disappearance
|
| These two are not in the same category.
| glenstein wrote:
| What's the category?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The push back on banning (social media app) is befuddling to
| me. It's an egregious national security threat to have the
| youth of your nation addicted to an algorithm controlled by
| these same people.
|
| Censored because at least on reddit the bots will swoop in on
| any mention of it.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Surely this argument applies to every other country in the
| world and the allowing or otherwise of facebook, twitter, and
| so on?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Your argument hinges on the US government and Chinese
| government being equivalent.
|
| In the US you can take the government to court and actually
| win.
| bnjms wrote:
| What is the reason we're given for banning TikTok? Is it
| just "China scares us"? Because that's what it looks like.
| And that feels like it's against western ideals. Maybe it's
| "tit off tat" setting similar boundaries as what Western
| companies have to follow in China. That makes sense but
| I've not heard it packed that way. Also our own social
| media companies are mostly unpopular right now.
| [deleted]
| stormfather wrote:
| It's because every corporate entity in China is partially
| controlled by the CCP and their interests are often
| diametrically opposed to ours. There's no clear
| separation between corporate structure and party there.
| If it's in China's interest to influence our youth
| through TikTok they will do so.
| eunos wrote:
| So Bell Lab break up with Chinese characteristics?
| seo-speedwagon wrote:
| It would be pretty funny if one of the groups' business model was
| just drop shipping stuff from the other 5
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Alibaba group were the ones that disclosed the log4shell
| vulnerability which always surprised me. There they were sitting
| on the biggest security vulnerability ever and they tell the West
| about it!?
|
| I don't expect this to happen again.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Magnitude isn't really what's important for state-sponsored
| hacking, at least not of the kind that China (and the US)
| engage in. Covertness and deniability are more important, as is
| being able to target an attack to a particular victim.
| Log4shell doesn't satisfy any of these constraints.
|
| The Tianfu Cup, on the other hand, exists primarily because
| Chinese researchers kept disclosing valuable bugs at
| Pwn2Own[1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own#2018
| Shank wrote:
| > Alibaba group were the ones that disclosed the log4shell
| vulnerability which always surprised me
|
| Really? My memory of the event was that the news broke in
| Minecraft servers [0] before it was expanded to all Java apps
| that used log4j.
|
| [0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2021/12/the-l...
| shagie wrote:
| It started here https://github.com/apache/logging-
| log4j2/pull/608#issuecomme... and was rapidly recognized that
| this impacted almost everything.
|
| Minecraft servers were one of the most accessible places to
| use the exploit and at the same time, some of the ones that
| are least likely to patch updates rapidly.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| As others pointed out that comment was after the cve was
| created.
| shagie wrote:
| The comment is, but the start of the PR (by a person from
| the Apache Foundation org) matches matches the "we told
| Apache" date.
|
| The "all hell broke lose" starts with that comment.
|
| Note that the LDAP part wasn't sufficient to fully excise
| the security vulnerability.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| 24th Nov reported by Alibaba and the 30th this
| conversation starts in response to the heads up right.
| fancl20 wrote:
| Yeah and they failed to report to China's MIIT within the
| time window... https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-halts-
| alibaba-cybersecuri...
|
| (To be clear the obligation is not they have to report to
| Chinese government first. They just totally forgot to tell
| the government agency for coordinating these kind of security
| incident cross companies)
| rfoo wrote:
| TBF at least half of the firms did't give a fuck to the
| specific regulation at that time, and given the rumor that
| the bug is found when a Security Engineer (who works on
| product security instead of vulnerability research) decided
| to learn CodeQL I'm not surprised nobody on his report
| chain cared enough.
|
| ... and oh hi are you the same fancl20 on <that mostly-
| defunct Chinese Twitter-clone> some 15 years ago?
| crop_rotation wrote:
| It was the Alibaba group. They were even penalised by Chinese
| authorities for not following some protocol around
| disclosures.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log4Shell
|
| > The vulnerability had existed unnoticed since 2013 and was
| privately disclosed to the Apache Software Foundation, of
| which Log4j is a project, by Chen Zhaojun of Alibaba Cloud's
| security team on 24 November 2021. Before an official CVE
| identifier was made available on December 10th, 2021.
|
| your Link dated 12/13/2021 says:
|
| > Log4Shell is the name given to a critical zero-day
| vulnerability that surfaced on Thursday when it was exploited
| in the wild in remote-code compromises against Minecraft
| servers.
|
| Which would have been around the 9th of Dec.
| [deleted]
| bacchusracine wrote:
| Does this change anything with regard to how average citizens can
| and cannot order from Alibaba? There are things available on that
| site that simply do not exist outside of it. Not on Aliexpress or
| elsewhere that I am aware of.
|
| I'd love to be able to order some of these, not for resale but
| personal use, but since I am not a corporation they are closed to
| me.
| sschueller wrote:
| https://archive.md/FXvGs
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-28 23:02 UTC)