I hope we in the Western democracies will re-industrialize quick and everything that possible on our own again, and I am a big fan of open source.

But even then, I don’t think that China will stop being a rogue state. The Chinese government will remain the biggest threat actor.

It’s the usual foreign interference by the bully disrespecting international law.

For BYD and other Chinese tech companies, enabling surveillance isn’t a bug but rather a feature.

@atro_city@fedia.io

China is the nation’s “top threat”.

Yes. And this is no surprise. Chinese carmakers, very much as any Chinese companies, operate under the rule of the Chinese party-state. The regime in Beijing suppresses dissent, people forcibly disappear, they even threaten your family members if you are deemed to be a threat to the party, and it purposefully misleads its own population through a ruthless disinformation machinery, just to name some examples.

Does that mean they’ll invest in local industries and become more technologically and resource sovereign? Will they educate their citizens about democracy, critical thinking, and how to recognise propaganda? Will they stop trying to legislate backdoors into all technology, reduce surveillance, and data collection?

Not that these you questions have anything to do with the linked article’s topic, but a change in economic policy has already been going on for some time. It’s slow and late, and I hope it gets a bit better with cooperation with the EU, Canada, New Zealand, and others.

An EU alliance could also help with better privacy laws, amongst others. But we must fight for more democracy. It’s a battle that never ends as human rights are not a given. Just look at China.

[Edit typo.]

Both are completely insane. But I agree with the rest of your comment.

I fully agree. There must be no kill switches. But it is nevertheless clear that they pose a greater greater risk in the hands of Chinese EV makers as they can be compelled by the Chinese government to “co-operate.” China is well-known for all kinds of coercion.

As an addition: Remote ‘kill switches’ in Chinese buses have been found last year in the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Norway, …

Here are some articles:

Kill switches: a new way of waging war

There is already evidence found of Chinese kill switches in devices like wind turbines, solar panels, and buses. These are pieces of hardware that allow the manufacturer to disable or disrupt the device. Are we surrounded by ticking time bombs?

Neighboring Norway’s discovery that buses could be controlled from China now has Denmark on high alert

As an addition: Remote ‘kill switches’ in Chinese buses have been found last year in the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Norway, …

Here are some articles:

Kill switches: a new way of waging war

There is already evidence found of Chinese kill switches in devices like wind turbines, solar panels, and buses. These are pieces of hardware that allow the manufacturer to disable or disrupt the device. Are we surrounded by ticking time bombs?

Neighboring Norway’s discovery that buses could be controlled from China now has Denmark on high alert

As an addition: Remote ‘kill switches’ in Chinese buses have been found last year in the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Norway, …

Here are some articles:

Kill switches: a new way of waging war

There is already evidence found of Chinese kill switches in devices like wind turbines, solar panels, and buses. These are pieces of hardware that allow the manufacturer to disable or disrupt the device. Are we surrounded by ticking time bombs?

Neighboring Norway’s discovery that buses could be controlled from China now has Denmark on high alert

As an addition: Remote ‘kill switches’ in Chinese buses have been found last year in the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Norway, …

Here are some articles:

Kill switches: a new way of waging war

There is already evidence found of Chinese kill switches in devices like wind turbines, solar panels, and buses. These are pieces of hardware that allow the manufacturer to disable or disrupt the device. Are we surrounded by ticking time bombs?

Neighboring Norway’s discovery that buses could be controlled from China now has Denmark on high alert

It is important to note that Gigaset is a German company, but since 2024 it is owned by V-Tech based in Hong Kong.

It is important to note that Gigaset is a German company, but since 2024 it is owned by V-Tech based in Hong Kong.

It is important to note that Gigaset is a German company, but since 2024 it is owned by V-Tech based in Hong Kong.

This is good, of course, I just hope that sovereign cloud spending doesn’t include thd so-called “European Sovereign Cloud” by firms like AWS and the like as it was the case in the past.

Interesting, but I think we need to focus on our own backyards before poking others.

That’s a strange take if I may say so. Democracy is threatened in all the relatively low number of countries where it exists, but Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some others are far away from dictatorial regimes like China and Russia.

Of course, we must focus also on transparency in our countries (this is what the study also explicitly says) but there we must also double down on transparency in authoritarian states. This is not limited to, but includes transparent supply chain laws, labour rights, human rights, free media, and other areas. It has nothing to do with ‘poking on others’ imo.

They force the government to levy taxes and tariffs and ban competition to protect their established non-competitive products and profit margins.

Even if we put aside that Chinese manufacturers produce often under slave-like conditions, the vast majority of companies are not fit for market without massive state subsidies and additional support that are much higher than anything in West.

A good way to observe this is, for example, when we compare Chinese and Western car manufacturers which are producing within China. Even in the country, Chinese car firms receive a lot more direct state aid by all comparative standards. Between 2019 and 2002, Tesla’s reported state aid was 2% of net income, and no grants since 2023 (European car markers’ grants were even lower than Tesla’s), while BYD’s subsidy income were 265 of net income in 2024 and 35% in 2025.

The gap between Western and Chinese producers is much larger if Western firms produce at home.

Another way Chinese carmakers lower costs: they ‘outsource’ costs to their suppliers. BYD has even created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which it issues “e-debt certificates" which means the company stands outside the law (there is a Negotiable Instruments Law in China in principle, but it doesn’t matter to all companies). According to company reports for the years 2023 and 2024, BYD took an average of 155 days to pay suppliers, Geely 149 days, and Leapmotor even 225 days.

Western carmakers paid their suppliers much sooner - Tesla withing 60 days, Volkswagen in 43 days, and 41 for Toyota in 41 days.

Chinese companies also benefit from below-market borowings (below the China Prime Loan Rate), and they receive preferential access to cheap land to build their factories (especially if and when there are good connections to the party).

And this is a TINY sample of what happens. Comparing Western and Chinese subsidies doesn’t make sense. It must clearly be said that under Western subsidy schemes, Chinese carmakers would have long been bankrupt.

The subsidies in China for its companies go well beyond everything we do (or have done ) in the West.

A good way to observe this is, for example, when we compare Chinese and Western car manufacturers which are producing within China. Even in the country, Chinese car firms receive a lot more direct state aid by all comparative standards. Between 2019 and 2002, Tesla’s reported state aid was 2% of net income, and no grants since 2023 (European car markers’ grants were even lower than Tesla’s), while BYD’s subsidy income were 265 of net income in 2024 and 35% in 2025.

The gap between Western and Chinese producers is much larger if Western firms produce at home.

Another way Chinese carmakers lower costs: they ‘outsource’ costs to their suppliers. BYD has even created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which it issues “e-debt certificates" which means the company stands outside the law (there is a Negotiable Instruments Law in China in principle, but it doesn’t matter to all companies). According to company reports for the years 2023 and 2024, BYD took an average of 155 days to pay suppliers, Geely 149 days, and Leapmotor even 225 days.

Western carmakers paid their suppliers much sooner - Tesla withing 60 days, Volkswagen in 43 days, and 41 for Toyota in 41 days.

Chinese companies also benefit from below-market borowings (below the China Prime Loan Rate), and they receive preferential access to cheap land to build their factories (especially if and when there are good connections to the party).

And this is a TINY sample of what happens. Comparing Western and Chinese subsidies doesn’t make sense. It must clearly be said that under Western subsidy schemes, Chinese carmakers would have long been bankrupt.

Edit: I didn’t mention that whenever you buy a China-made car (from a Chinese or non-Chinese brand), you risk to buy a car made by forced labour. We must not forget this.

This is an empty rant that makes no economic sense.

China’s goals are selfish … a good baseline for any other open source project which have public good in mind.

How does this make sense? There is no open source. As China is ‘selfish’, as you say yourself, how can this be a ‘good baseline for any other open source project which have public good in mind’?

What do you understand by ‘capitalism’ and what has it to do with this issue?

You are contradicting yourself over and again, the only consistent thing is the positive frame of China. This is just Chinese propaganda and makes no sense.

And capitalism defenders can’t have that…

What do you understand by ‘capitalism’ and what has it to do with this issue?

What China is attempting here is - amongst others - a shift towards a neoliberal system that will financially benefit a few at the expense of the mass (just look at the wealth and income inequality that has extensively increased in China in the recent decade and now reached U.S. levels, surpassing EU levels).

Open source should aim to make software a public good, not a commodity.