Rendered at 22:29:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
wxw 3 hours ago [-]
> After a $75 million fundraising round led by U.S. venture firm Benchmark in May 2025, Manus shut its China offices in July, laying off dozens of employees. It then moved its operations to Singapore.
> It was not immediately clear on what grounds China was seeking the annulment of a deal involving a Singapore-based company and how, if at all, a completed acquisition transaction would be unwound.
> Manus' two co-founders, CEO Xiao Hong and chief scientist Ji Yichao, were summoned to Beijing for talks with regulators in March and later barred from leaving the country, five sources familiar with the matter said.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
kelnos 5 minutes ago [-]
The third quote seems to invalidate the second, no? Under the "grounds" that key people are currently physically in China, and as such, the Chinese government can coerce them to do whatever it wants.
Though I suppose of those two do not have majority ownership of the company, the actual majority owners can refuse to unwind the sale without their consent. Company might be worth quite a bit less to Meta without those key people, though.
skeledrew 1 hours ago [-]
The co-founders have roots in China. As such it's already a done deal that China will get its way.
throw03172019self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__=self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__||[];self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__.push("e:I[\"6ed23a8ff0cc\",[],\"default\",1]\nf:T451,The US doesn't need to do 'something like this', they can just bar you from the global financial system if they don't like you. [1]\u003cp\u003eOr just order another country to snatch you up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou\"\u003ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShe was arrested, and was being extradited from Canada into the United States... Because her Chinese company was doing business with Iran.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout\"\u003ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis chap was arrested in Thailand, extradited, and did a decade in a US prison because he had the audacity of selling weapons from Russia to Colombia. I'm not sure how exactly US law is of any relevance to such transactions...\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e[1] Or, since 2025, just shoot a missile at your boat, with an option for a follow-up salvo if there any survivors. Strangely enough, everyone who has managed to survive both the initial attack, and the double-tap has so far been repatriated to their countries of origin, with no charges filed by the US.\u003c/p\u003e10:T9ac,")- --> 2 hours ago [-]
Dealt with is the founders / team / investors losing out of the $2B. That’s the punishment from China.
giwook 2 hours ago [-]
Somehow I think there is a real possibility more will happen.
Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
I don't claim to know what's going on outside of what's being reported, but I'm reminded of other individuals who have "stepped out of line" (as determined by Beijing) and were also either barred from the country or mysteriously disappeared for weeks or months at a time only to randomly reappear at some point singing a different tune.
observationist 34 minutes ago [-]
>>> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
This is standard operating procedure for the CCP. They are a truly ruthless, sinister group who have no scruples about ensuring compliance and using leverage on behalf of Chinese interests. Just look at what happened to Jack Ma.
cineticdaffodil 46 minutes ago [-]
Usually they just threaten the family that stayed in china to enforce compliance. As in visit by police and do a video call. Good old socialist playbook. Guess the CEOs were to workaholic ti be threatened with the mafia methods.
cermicelli 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
guywithahat 1 hours ago [-]
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes
I don't think it's actually that uncommon in China, especially with high profile people. To China's credit, we often bar people from leaving the country if they're charged with a crime but not convicted of anything. While it's certainly scary and authoritarian, I think it's par for the course in China. Most companies have some amount of CCP representation in them, either on the board or some level of management.
dublinstats 1 hours ago [-]
Shouldn't every country be barring people from leaving the country if they've been charged with a crime? At least if there's a good chance they will flee justice.
This seems like a side issue from the question of whether the charges are legitimate.
Invictus0 1 minutes ago [-]
The Manus founders had already left China. They were called back and went willingly, because if you don't go back, then China disappears your family.
mothballed 55 minutes ago [-]
It's extremely common even without a crime. US block or cancel people with extremely small child support debts (I think like $1000 which is a single missed payment for middle class person) and people with moderate tax debts (I think about $25,000) for instance from getting a passport.
skippyboxedhero 30 minutes ago [-]
Yes, everyone country does this. You can be barred from travel in a wide range of other circumstances in many other countries.
Every person has a nationalistic solipsism that renders them incapable of understanding events that occur outside of their own country. China and the US are two countries where this tends to be most severe, people outside these countries seem to believe they possess a profound and innate understanding of events there that renders them capable of offering a complete opinion (and, in reality, that opinion will almost always be entirely self-referential, 20% of the comments on this thread seem to be talking about the US).
At a high-level, the characterization of China as a lawless dictatorship is undermined somewhat by the higher levels of crime in almost every other country. You will see this interpretation of China from people in the US who live in places where there are constant, visible signs of crime.
glerk 3 minutes ago [-]
Just because the US also does this doesn’t make it right for China to do it and vice versa.
Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.
soperj 2 hours ago [-]
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
Feels like Guantanamo Bay all over again.
EA-3167 2 hours ago [-]
In what conceivable way?
soperj 15 minutes ago [-]
Indefinite detention without charges. Sounds exactly the same.
Do you really believe that "activists" and suspected criminals are given the same treatment as some entrepreneurs who just lost their shirts? This feels like an excuse to bring up something that's fundamentally unrelated to the subject at hand, because there are a dozen closer and more useful comparisons to make than Gitmo.
For example how Japan can hold and question people without access to a lawyer, outside of police stations.
ahmadyan 1 hours ago [-]
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
Pure speculation on my part, but i wouldn't be surprised if China didn't have our equivalent of export control laws, not difficult to fabricate a crime and pin it on founders.
ericmay 1 hours ago [-]
They do have export control laws and such, but based on current and past behavior China’s Communist Party doesn’t need those laws to disappear people or create crimes and then make people guilty of said crimes.
Worth mentioning though that this is not how America functions, nor our rule of law.
Not much, none of those cases from the US resulted in disappearing the founders. The US is a nation of laws, no matter how imperfect. Stark contrast to the CCP.
refulgentis 1 hours ago [-]
Yr parent is new to standard China legal mechanisms and you pivoted off of that to invent a chain of stuff that isn’t real. Are they unfamiliar to us? Yes. But it’s worth speaking to whether the speculation is rational.
itopaloglu83 2 hours ago [-]
Looks like the issue will be “dealt with” though we don’t know how exactly.
paulsutter 3 hours ago [-]
It's easy to see how this will play out. The entrepreneurs will get nothing. Most likely everyone else that has been paid (investors, etc) will keep what they received. Whether Meta or the CCP ends up with the proceeds of the entrepreneurs, that's anyone's guess.
stego-tech 3 hours ago [-]
I suspect this is more of a warning shot to others attempting the same playbook ("Singapore-washing", as I've heard folks call it): the state is watching, and shifting geopolitics means it's in their interest to retain successful talent and entities at home rather than let opposition have them.
If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way of pushback, so China must feel very confident in its position to use such tactics.
aesch 3 hours ago [-]
I don't know if America has done anything quite like this. The example I'm looking for is where a company starts in the US but leaves and incorporates outside the US and then the US attempts to block acquisition by a foreign company. Also, the enforcement mechanism while vague seems un-American. America might tax the company upon exit but it wouldn't hold the founders hostage in America. If you have examples I'd be curious.
DontBreakAlex 60 minutes ago [-]
You don't need to incorporate in the US for this to happen to you. You should look up what happened to Marc Lasus after he founded Gemplus (spoiler, he's on social security while the company the CIA stole from him has $3b revenue) or how Frédéric Pierucci was taken hostage to force the sale of France's nuclear reactors to General Electric. I assume the US does this to all the other countries too.
3 hours ago [-]
capitalhilbilly 53 minutes ago [-]
Being stopped that late is a bit different than the US AFAIK,
but there is certainly the possibility of being stopped from work and (depending how you react) prevented from leaving the US for purely economic inventions:
I find it notable that the US' actual checks on government have worked against expanding the secrecy act further into economic protectionism for favored industries, etc.
vkou 1 hours ago [-]
The US doesn't need to do 'something like this', they can just bar you from the global financial system if they don't like you. [1]
This chap was arrested in Thailand, extradited, and did a decade in a US prison because he had the audacity of selling weapons from Russia to Colombia. I'm not sure how exactly US law is of any relevance to such transactions...
---
[1] Or, since 2025, just shoot a missile at your boat, with an option for a follow-up salvo if there any survivors. Strangely enough, everyone who has managed to survive both the initial attack, and the double-tap has so far been repatriated to their countries of origin, with no charges filed by the US.
cermicelli 1 hours ago [-]
US has blocked merges of companies especially with Chinese and other non western companies. Including Japan, India etc.
Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics tried buying Lumileds, blocked again by US. Also Chinese ofc.
Broadcom and Qualcomm deal was also blocked, Broadcom was then Singapore based in process of moving to US I believe... (very sus happened in 2018 too, someone didn't pay Donald enough)
I am certain there must be European examples as well but smaller ofc, AI companies are over valued these days, most acquisitions were never this big in the olden days of pre 2020s...
I know for a fact that most folks don't want to invest in US for this reason other than in public equities or bonds ofc. Private foreign investment in US has been high only due to European pensions and Middle-eastern money going into it.
I don't know about how fair, far, or right it was compared to these were, detaining founders is also not confirmed, but sure let's assume it's true still...
Only difference in US is perhaps foreign folks can sue over it. Sometimes, if they are lucky and if the deal is worth it.
I find it strange people of HN being based in US can be so ill informed of what their country, does to foreign companies but be mad about things foreign companies do to them?
I mean sure rest(96%) of the world doesn't really exist, it's but a myth or a land the better folks of US only want to take value when needed?
Unsure what this comment meant, this has happened before as well btw, these are just post 2010s examples because they are relevant. Russians and US used to do this too, India and US were worse of pre-2000s, Japan and US were at their throats in 1980s, in terms of trade and acquisition...
2 hours ago [-]
rzerowan 3 hours ago [-]
Famously back in the day Grindr , which had a plot point in the Silicon Valley series . Probably more obscure ones that havent been heard of outside software in the Hard tech space like MotorSich (Ukranian) was being courted by Chinese investment got blocked due to US pressure. And very recently the whole TikTok fiasco.
strangegecko 3 hours ago [-]
What examples do you have of the US government doing to CEOs what has happened to people like Jack Ma and many other public figures?
For China, there are so many examples of people doing 180s and being full of contrition after those interventions, it's hard to imagine anything but severe intimidation or worse happening behind closed doors.
reissbaker 3 hours ago [-]
You've been all over this this thread responding with the same whataboutist comments claiming America does the same thing. And yet, I'm pretty sure America hasn't held American citizens hostage in order to force them to unwind a sale of a foreign company they founded to a different foreign company.
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
US absolutely has exit bans on people who break/is being investigated for national security and export control laws, which is what Manus did. Except Americans don't call it hostage taking when they do it.
JPKab 2 hours ago [-]
Please cite an example.
burntbridge 10 minutes ago [-]
Dan Duggan
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
Not sure if serious, you think US doesn't make people surrender passports for NSL investigations, i.e. Supermicro trio surrendered their passports.
bit-anarchist 1 hours ago [-]
Not comparable. The Supermicro trio wasn't trapped for trying to sell a company to China.
maxglute 1 hours ago [-]
Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.
bit-anarchist 1 hours ago [-]
As another comment mentioned, comparing "employees trying to selling GPUs to an unauthrorized country" and "CEOs selling a company built on national resources to an outside country" is spherical cows levels of comparison.
maxglute 60 minutes ago [-]
Another wrong comment doesn't make being wrong less wrong. CEOs/persons trying to sell controlled technology unauthorized for export by origin country. They are direct legal analogs.
bit-anarchist 55 minutes ago [-]
Wrong how? It is your comment that is missing the point. The contention isn't whether USA has export control (you are the one who brought it up), it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.
Are you trying to push a red herring?
maxglute 25 seconds ago [-]
US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If they did try to circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against law of course they'll have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban. Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was fully blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export control laws after PRC closed loopholes, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, despite being told not to, because its against law.
Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense.
mothballed 51 minutes ago [-]
Philip Agee
2 hours ago [-]
stego-tech 2 hours ago [-]
You're right. To my knowledge, we don't hold citizens hostage to force them to unwind the sale of a foreign company they smuggled out of America into another country to a different foreign company.
But you cannot seriously hold America up as blameless when we've wielded our economy as a cudgel against anyone we remotely disagree with (sanctions against Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc; tariffs against everybody), have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice, regularly park our navy off foreign shores to coerce desired outcomes, and dronestrike civilians as a final saber-rattling before full-fledged conflict.
The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell, take a look beyond the past thirty years of history and there's a glut of incidents where empires used this sort of leverage to achieve outcomes - including the United States! We've traded political prisoners to achieve negotiated outcomes repeatedly, we just use different words to make ourselves feel better about it. We've propped up entire puppet states to ensure American corporate interests were served instead!
Like, holy shit, why do I have to teach you naysayers what's already outlined in history books just because you can't be bothered to do the assigned reading?
nerdsniper 2 hours ago [-]
Just last year the USA de-banked (from EU banks) EU citizens who are International Criminal Court officials for "opening preliminary investigations against Israeli personnel". The USA wields incredible power over financial interactions.
stego-tech 2 hours ago [-]
THANK YOU, I knew I was overlooking a recent example in favor of historical ones!
Alive-in-2025 2 hours ago [-]
Trump is making it worse, but there had been examples of bad behavior. Now the US is completely uncontrolled. I can't say we wouldn't do something like happened here (trying to stop a foreign company from selling stuff or developing stuff) if it was doing something significant about weapons or ai.
2 hours ago [-]
thrownthatway 2 hours ago [-]
While I don’t agree with your tone, and I’m sure an unbiased reading of history also wouldn’t agree with your tone…
Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia?
nandomrumber 1 hours ago [-]
> have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice
I wonder how that came about?
What’s that fence analogy called?
Chester-what?
Levitz 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think anyone is holding the US as blameless or perfect, but it gets exhausting to see Chinese propaganda every single time anything like this happens.
When the US does something reprehensible, people rarely come up in droves going on and about China's enablement of the North Korean regime or the many abuses enacted on its population, but every single time the US does anything we had to read a whole lot on how "at least China doesn't invade countries" as if the prime reason as to why China doesn't tend to involve itself militarily isn't precisely American hegemony. The rate at which the country is portrayed as some paragon of human rights, equality and peacefulness is either insane, deluded, or paid for.
RobertoG 1 hours ago [-]
You have to be joking.
The media is almost daily full of China scares.
Also, the comments here are not talking about who started this war, with the GPU sanctions and the arrest of the daughter of Huawei's founder.
Does it mean the Chinese are the good guys? No, because there are not good guys, but there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
bit-anarchist 28 minutes ago [-]
> The media is almost daily full of China scares
That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?
> there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.
stickfigure 2 hours ago [-]
> You're right.
You should have just left it at that.
wewtyflakes 2 hours ago [-]
I think people are frustrated with the firehose of whataboutism rather than disagreeing with you with the idea that things are not perfect.
stego-tech 2 hours ago [-]
I mean, the whataboutism is a critical tool in negating propaganda. Rather than focus on the reprehensibility of anyone using threats of violence like this to force specific outcomes favorable to domestic policy, everyone is instead hung up on the fact China did this.
Whataboutism, used effectively, is meant to draw parallels rather than excuse behavior. Fuck China for what it's doing here, but also fuck the countries and entities who have used similar tactics in the past to great effect. Don't just conveniently put on blinders for what's happening/happened at home all because the government-labelled "baddie" did it too.
boc 2 hours ago [-]
Whataboutism, used effectively, is designed to change the subject and stop detailed exploration of the topic at hand. Which is what you're doing in this thread. We don't need to turn a news-relevant thread specifically about the CCP into a thread relitigating decades of American government and business behavior. You can make a separate submission to discuss the US if you'd like.
intended 2 hours ago [-]
> The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell,
There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
This just PRC finally applying their version of US export controls, i.e. PRC gets to control PRC originated algos, same argument as TikTok. The founders aren't held "hostage", they're under investigation for violating export control and national security laws. PRC hinted signalled pretty clearly they would use art12 (catch all clause) of export control laws and offshore affiliate rules (to address Singapore loophole) before Manus deal closed - Manus ignored loud hints. The difference is PRC wasn't super judicious in enforcing AI related export controls (especially since agent development new hence art12), US would have ensured this control list tech wouldn't leave US territory via foreign product rule / CFIUS / BIS. PRC gave pretty clear signals to Manus what was going to happen hoping they'd unwind on their own, but they didn't so now they're going to eat shit.
PRC still haven't gone the step up to ban PRC strategic talent from working in US like US has for PRC semi. Don't be surprised in 5-10 years US has to hire PRC workers with obfuscated identities like PRC dealing with US/TW talent in PRC EUV. Plenty more room how these things can escalate depending on how serious PRC starts to treat dual use AI.
JPKab 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
3401876 2 hours ago [-]
How much is Xi paying the Washington Post, which reports:
"In January, Beijing began investigating Manus for compliance with export controls [...]"
You could make way more money as an AI shill.
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
all the epetroyuan pandabond credits.
timothyshen123 3 minutes ago [-]
I really wonder what the employee status gonna be like. It has been quite some time now, I think Meta and Manus are deeply binded lol. As a Manus user, I am liking the product. Sad to see social criticism of them and to see this news.
orange_joe 3 hours ago [-]
interesting. Manus is nominally a Singapore based company and should be immune to these actions. Tiktok argued that it was headquartered in Singapore with a Singaporean CEO. breaking singapore’s fig leaf might prove problematic in the long run.
nerdsniper 2 hours ago [-]
The founders are Chinese citizens, and pressure was applied to the founders personally. Thus Singapore was given room to save face re: sovereignty.
pear01 2 hours ago [-]
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR):
So you said today, as you often say that you live in Singapore. Of what nation are you a citizen?
Shou Chew:
Singapore.
Cotton:
Are you a citizen of any other nation?
Chew:
No, Senator.
Cotton:
Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?
Chew:
Senator? I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.
Cotton:
Do you have a Singaporean passport?
Chew:
Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.
Cotton:
Do you have any other passports from any other nations?
Chew:
No, Senator.
Cotton:
Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens?
Chew:
That's correct.
Cotton:
Have you ever applied for American citizenship?
Chew:
No, not yet.
Cotton:
Okay. Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?
Chew:
Senator? I'm Singaporean, no.
Cotton:
Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?
Chew:
No. Senator, again, I'm Singaporean.
HSO 1 hours ago [-]
what part of they are chinese citizens was hard for you to understand?
pear01 1 hours ago [-]
i understand that perfectly, which is why i responded sarcastically to a point trying to connect this to TikTok's "argument" re their Singaporean CEO by pasting an infamous digression on that very topic.
seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.
giancarlostoro 3 hours ago [-]
Funny when you consider the world owes a lot of AI advancements to both Meta and Google, their open releases really did shift things, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, especially for China, which as far as I know were not releasing as much in AI as they have been beforehand. I remember when Meta released Llama originally people were speculating about it, but it wound up producing a lot of projects that used it, I'm sure some in China. I know that Perplexity has its own custom model on top of Llama that they use for their default model, and its pretty darn good.
henry2023 3 hours ago [-]
Wasn’t Llama a leak that got so popular meta decided to change their whole approach?
I was working at Google at the time. Before Llama, releasing weights was not even worth a discussion.
calebkaiser 3 hours ago [-]
If I'm remembering right, it was weirder than that, as Llama's originally release strategy was sort of bizarre.
You did have to apply for access, but if you met their criteria (basically if you were the right profile of researcher or in government), you got direct access to the model weights, not just an API for a hosted model. So access was restricted, but the full weights were shared.
I believe that the model was leaked by multiple people, some of which didn't work at Meta but had been granted access to the weights.
giancarlostoro 3 hours ago [-]
Not sure, but open weights have had their effects. For example, look at Wan 2.2 the last open weights Wan release, still the most powerful Video inference out there, to the level of quality it provides, unfortunately, it went closed source, but before they did, the community had built all sorts of tooling and LoRas on top of it. Nothing comes close for video a year later. Back to llama though, look at all the open models people run offline through their Macs. It definitely had a net positive.
inkysigma 56 minutes ago [-]
I'm curious how this view fits in with BERT or the T5 release which prior to the current LLM craze were the de facto language models for use in pretty much any tasks. Was this a position that would've otherwise grown without the llama release?
zonkerdonker 3 hours ago [-]
>not immediately clear on what grounds China was seeking the annulment of a deal involving a Singapore-based company and how, if at all, a completed acquisition transaction would be unwound.
Interesting. I wonder what sorts of threats China could make to back up this demand, or if this is more of a warning for future acquisitions in the space.
some_random 3 hours ago [-]
"Your families live here", maybe "We have shadow police stations across the world", the playbook is well established
Detrytus 3 hours ago [-]
That's interesting, because recently China is definitely trying to paint themselves as the reasonable, stable partner, commited to upholding international law (unlike the US, which is ruled by a madman) . Trying to block this aquisition without good legal argument goes directly against that strategy.
strangegecko 2 hours ago [-]
They're doing a lot that goes against that strategy, you just don't see it in the headlines except in cases such as these or when you dig into how they conduct international negotiations or business deals involving the Chinese market.
Not to mention how they are openly expansionist in the SCS and obviously wrt Taiwan.
Of course they want to be seen as reasonable, their ideal is to control the international narrative just how they can do it internally in China.
RobertoG 1 hours ago [-]
So, who would you say that spend more resources 'controlling the international narrative', the USA or China?
stego-tech 3 hours ago [-]
I mean, they're just cribbing what America did, and what the British Empire did before that.
It's a disgusting playbook, but it's also an effective one if you're a state trying to exert control over important players or entities.
catgary 3 hours ago [-]
I think you need to give some concrete examples, considering the US happily let its companies offshore a lot of work to China over the years, and Chinese funds own large chunks of American companies.
* We continue to embargo Cuba instead of letting it succeed or fail on its own merits - while also controlling their own land for a Black Ops prison and having attempted repeatedly to assassinate their leaders or create coups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
* Our centralization of global finance and status as a reserve currency lets us dictate global policy on everything from Intellectual Property to National Defense, meaning companies generally have to "play ball" or the host country will incur penalties
I can go on, but really, Wikipedia is right there. If you're looking for a specific analogue to "we kidnapped CEOs and demanded a foreign company unwind their merger", I don't think I can provide that right away; however, if instead you're looking for examples of "country used threats and force to foment an outcome favorable to its domestic policies", well then, boy howdy are there tons and tons of examples out there just a cursory search away.
JPKab 2 hours ago [-]
You basically just parroted a bunch of Howard Zinn agitprop and didn't cite a single example that was remotely similar to this specific incident, because you literally can't. What exactly is your motivation here, because it's certainly not truth-seeking.
selectively 1 hours ago [-]
Howard Zinn was a hero.
jujube3 2 hours ago [-]
Since you think Cuba and China are such nice places, perhaps try living there. You'll quickly find out about their "merits" (such as the fact that they execute dissidents).
ebbi 1 hours ago [-]
True, America just kills outside its borders (~37 million people since the 50s), so it's a lot safer!
ozgrakkurt 2 hours ago [-]
Also you can add middle east for last 20-30 years.
Complete disregard for human life for profit.
HDThoreaun 2 hours ago [-]
None of this is similar to what is happening here
some_random 3 hours ago [-]
Not even getting into the more dubious part of this claim, just because the British or Americans did it doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. If you disagree with that, you're implicitly pro slavery, pro penal expeditions, etc.
stego-tech 2 hours ago [-]
Oh, no, it's incredibly reprehensible what China's doing.
Just like it was reprehensible that America propped up the Iranian shah to ensure western oil interests were served. And reprehensible that the British Empire got the Chinese addicted to Opium to force more favorable trade agreements. Also reprehensible is the Cuban blockade imposed by America, which has prohibited the country from thriving or failing on its own merits and forced suffering onto its people.
It's all reprehensible, and it should all be held up lest folks get this notion that America is this infallible savior who can do no wrong. It's bad, and it should never happen, but it does and it will so long as people keep buying into Nationalist narratives like these.
some_random 1 hours ago [-]
You find it reprehensible but can't _just_ say that, you have to justify it with "and also the Americans and British did it". Yeah right.
owebmaster 5 minutes ago [-]
Why does that bother you tho? Not having the moral ground changes the argument?
pishpash 2 hours ago [-]
There is this thing called implicit acceptability. If you really find it unacceptable you might want to start close to your circle of concern. Otherwise, pretty sure you find it acceptable by action.
Many, even most people are pro-slavery and pro-whatever as we speak, even paying to see it happen. They only mouth some useless moralizing words.
2 hours ago [-]
dublinstats 3 hours ago [-]
Like when the British empire would execute anyone who tried to export silkworms. Wait no that was the Chinese empire.
stego-tech 2 hours ago [-]
...bruh. With a name like 'dublinstats', I really would've thought you'd have a better command of the exploitative history of the British Empire and the British East India Company. Like the Opium Wars are right there, but yeah, China's forever the baddie for imposing export controls on domestic resources.
okiedokie.
dublinstats 1 hours ago [-]
By that logic I guess the side you have taken here demonstrates you are Chinese?
godelski 3 hours ago [-]
I'm really unfamiliar with this playbook and how America has used it. Do you have any examples? I can't seem to find any
LarsDu88 41 minutes ago [-]
Chinese government blocks stupid American from overpaying for Chinese technology thereby missing out on free taxable revenue....
wg0 36 minutes ago [-]
Tit for tat. US administration thought they would contain China. Now Deepseek v4 is running on their home grown chips. US companies lost that hardware revenue and dependency instead.
dyauspitr 14 minutes ago [-]
Deepseek v4 is still pretty far behind the frontier models though.
mullingitover 17 minutes ago [-]
> The Chinese government’s intervention in the transaction drew alarm among tech founders and venture capitalists in the country who were hoping to take advantage of the so-called Singapore-washing model, where companies relocate from China to the city-state to avoid scrutiny from Beijing and Washington.
If the US is going to treat AI technology as a strategic issue upon which it's going to play the national security card, it's not really valid to start the pearl-clutching when China does the same.
Seems like Manus and Meta thought they were going to be clever, and that China wasn't going to play any any of the cards they were holding. Even GPT-2 could've told them that was a dumb idea.
efields 3 hours ago [-]
The… hands of fate?
_fat_santa 3 hours ago [-]
Besides the fact that the founders are in China and are barred from leaving, is there anything that prevents Manus/Meta from just telling the CCP to kick rocks?
Sure they can object to it or claim they are "blocking" the sale, but is there really anything they can do considering that Manus is no longer within their jurisdiction?
reissbaker 3 hours ago [-]
I think it's precisely the fact that the founders live in China. The CCP can make them... kick rocks... for the rest of their lives.
Generally speaking this seems bad for Chinese companies, though. They were able to raise capital from the West by running out of "Singapore"; I think basically every investor will have significant pause investing in Chinese-national-owned startups after this, "Singapore-based" or not.
kccqzy 3 hours ago [-]
The CCP is known to be very aggressive. Even if the founders acquired Singaporean citizenship (which is way easier for ethnic Chinese people than for other races), the CCP would have taken them hostage if they just set foot in China like for a business trip. They can invent a crime and subject them to a trial with Chinese rules. What can Singapore do? It’s a tiny country that tries to walk a tightrope by simultaneously maintaining good relations with both China and the U.S.
r14c 3 hours ago [-]
They wouldn't have to "invent a crime", circumventing state interests in strategic technology is likely already illegal.
pelorat 2 hours ago [-]
> which is way easier for ethnic Chinese people than for other races
Nationals. The word you are looking for is nationals.
kccqzy 2 hours ago [-]
I am not. I am referring to the Chinese race. Their nationality could be Taiwanese or even Malaysian and the result is the same.
deepfriedbits 3 hours ago [-]
Not only that, but they can make life inconvenient for your family. Nobody reasonable would accuse the CCP of outright violence, but there are a million bureaucracy-related tricks the state can pull to leverage you and/or your family.
Well, reasonable people generally don't have a death wish. :P
baq 3 hours ago [-]
> Generally speaking this seems bad for Chinese companies, though.
Anyone who has ever thought otherwise was just naive. This is anything but news. If you’ve had an impression that China capital market is free and western-like, you were right - it was an impression. Always has been.
They kept him under house arrest for years and now he complies
pishpash 2 hours ago [-]
Are you really asking whether business deals can be unwound for whatever reason, like how ASML is "forbidden" to sell to certain customers after contracts are signed?
Funny that Manus already shows "by meta" along with the logo pretty prominently.
laweijfmvo 1 hours ago [-]
This is interesting. I wonder what inside information China could also be after that Manus might have after integrating with Meta.
hirako2000 15 minutes ago [-]
Could be, but if that's how it worked out they would have rather let the acquisition be, to gather much more.
OsrsNeedsf2P 3 hours ago [-]
This will be awkward, given the acquisition is already complete
some_random 3 hours ago [-]
Can we finally acknowledge the obvious Singapore-washing that Chinese companies have been doing for years or are we going to keep pretending?
arjvik 3 hours ago [-]
elaborate on the problem, for those of us that this is not obvious to?
some_random 3 hours ago [-]
Chinese company has an issue being a Chinese company for international legal or optics reasons, relocates to Singapore while still being controlled by Chinese nationals or all-but-Chinese-Nationals. Bytedance is a great example. Russian companies do the same thing with Switzerland, see Kaspersky.
dublinstats 2 hours ago [-]
They could just as well relocate to California for that matter.
The question is are they still controlled by the PRC. China doesn't allow dual citizenship (like other Asian countries), so people might legitimately want to work abroad while keeping their native passport.
some_random 1 hours ago [-]
Yes but also no, being in the US is a meaningful exposure in a way that a Singapore HQ isn't
hereme888 3 hours ago [-]
Poor Meta. AI is really just not working out for them.
KaoruAoiShiho 3 hours ago [-]
Manus is saved, 2 billion is such an undervaluation considering much worse companies like minimax is valued at 30 billion.
bergheim 39 minutes ago [-]
Terrible China! No way we would do that. I wonder what straight outta compton I mean the current administration would think of...tik tok being from somewhere else?
jorblumesea 3 hours ago [-]
So China is just claiming that anyone who is ethnically Chinese should be pressured? Manus is in Singapore and has no direct connections to China physically and financially. SG offices, SG product, SG founders with family on the mainland.
baq 2 hours ago [-]
First time interacting with a totalitarian government?
cyanydeez 2 hours ago [-]
Coming to an America near you!
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
Manus started in China, built by Chinese talent, hence all their work under purview of PRC export control laws, PRC merely closing loophole on SG washing. They haven't even done nuclear option like banning PRC from working in US AI like US has done in PRC semi.
outside1234 3 hours ago [-]
What leverage does China have here to enforce this? Meta doesn't do business in China. Can't they just give them the middle finger?
ls612 3 hours ago [-]
“Wouldn’t it be a shame if your family’s organs were harvested?”
I also assume, like most advertising platforms, they cater heavily to the China export market.
dublinstats 3 hours ago [-]
I don't think their social networks are allowed in China.
From your link it looks like they might do R&D for Oculus in China (but may not even be able to sell it there due to the data-collection tie in required).
Not sure what you mean by catering to the export market. b2b sales would be just as restricted as sales to consumers.
umeshunni 2 hours ago [-]
> b2b sales would be just as restricted as sales to consumers.
Obviously. With the US first controlling Venezuelan energy supplies to China and then cutting of Iranian energy supplies to China (as well as to the EU), what do you expect?
China isn't as stupid as the EU, which just says thanks and would you perhaps like to blow up another pipeline?
Hormuz will stay closed by the pirates. LNG terminals are already built in Alaska to supply the Asian "allies", whose economy the US also ruins.
If the EU had any backbone, it would cut off the US from ASML.
kubb 2 hours ago [-]
Somehow this is about the EU?
verdverm 2 hours ago [-]
The world order is early on in a major restructuring. The EU is a major region and on a path to greater self reliance and determination. This is good for the world imo (as an American)
hasbr12 2 hours ago [-]
US controlling the world's energy routes goes back to the Suez Crisis, where it wrestled the canal from Britain. Reagan blew up a Russian-German pipeline. The Nord Stream sabotage was at least condoned and cheered on. Now the closure of Hormuz was first provoked and then co-opted by the US.
Yes, this is about the rest of the world.
DeathArrow 2 hours ago [-]
>If the EU had any backbone, it would cut off the US from ASML.
> It was not immediately clear on what grounds China was seeking the annulment of a deal involving a Singapore-based company and how, if at all, a completed acquisition transaction would be unwound.
> Manus' two co-founders, CEO Xiao Hong and chief scientist Ji Yichao, were summoned to Beijing for talks with regulators in March and later barred from leaving the country, five sources familiar with the matter said.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Though I suppose of those two do not have majority ownership of the company, the actual majority owners can refuse to unwind the sale without their consent. Company might be worth quite a bit less to Meta without those key people, though.
Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.
I don't claim to know what's going on outside of what's being reported, but I'm reminded of other individuals who have "stepped out of line" (as determined by Beijing) and were also either barred from the country or mysteriously disappeared for weeks or months at a time only to randomly reappear at some point singing a different tune.
This is standard operating procedure for the CCP. They are a truly ruthless, sinister group who have no scruples about ensuring compliance and using leverage on behalf of Chinese interests. Just look at what happened to Jack Ma.
I don't think it's actually that uncommon in China, especially with high profile people. To China's credit, we often bar people from leaving the country if they're charged with a crime but not convicted of anything. While it's certainly scary and authoritarian, I think it's par for the course in China. Most companies have some amount of CCP representation in them, either on the board or some level of management.
This seems like a side issue from the question of whether the charges are legitimate.
Every person has a nationalistic solipsism that renders them incapable of understanding events that occur outside of their own country. China and the US are two countries where this tends to be most severe, people outside these countries seem to believe they possess a profound and innate understanding of events there that renders them capable of offering a complete opinion (and, in reality, that opinion will almost always be entirely self-referential, 20% of the comments on this thread seem to be talking about the US).
At a high-level, the characterization of China as a lawless dictatorship is undermined somewhat by the higher levels of crime in almost every other country. You will see this interpretation of China from people in the US who live in places where there are constant, visible signs of crime.
Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.
Feels like Guantanamo Bay all over again.
Assuming the best of intentions.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/michael-caster-on-chinas-for...
For example how Japan can hold and question people without access to a lawyer, outside of police stations.
Pure speculation on my part, but i wouldn't be surprised if China didn't have our equivalent of export control laws, not difficult to fabricate a crime and pin it on founders.
Worth mentioning though that this is not how America functions, nor our rule of law.
If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way of pushback, so China must feel very confident in its position to use such tactics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act
I find it notable that the US' actual checks on government have worked against expanding the secrecy act further into economic protectionism for favored industries, etc.
Or just order another country to snatch you up.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou
She was arrested, and was being extradited from Canada into the United States... Because her Chinese company was doing business with Iran.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout
This chap was arrested in Thailand, extradited, and did a decade in a US prison because he had the audacity of selling weapons from Russia to Colombia. I'm not sure how exactly US law is of any relevance to such transactions...
---
[1] Or, since 2025, just shoot a missile at your boat, with an option for a follow-up salvo if there any survivors. Strangely enough, everyone who has managed to survive both the initial attack, and the double-tap has so far been repatriated to their countries of origin, with no charges filed by the US.
For instance US Steel acquisition by Nippon Steel(japanese) is one such example. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vz83pg9eo
More examples,
Ant Group(chinese) tried to buy MoneyGram (blocked in 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/us-blocks-moneygram...
Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics tried buying Lumileds, blocked again by US. Also Chinese ofc.
Broadcom and Qualcomm deal was also blocked, Broadcom was then Singapore based in process of moving to US I believe... (very sus happened in 2018 too, someone didn't pay Donald enough)
https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/india-inc-and-the-cfius-nati... Indian company forced to divest from US tech firm... (2013)
I am certain there must be European examples as well but smaller ofc, AI companies are over valued these days, most acquisitions were never this big in the olden days of pre 2020s...
I know for a fact that most folks don't want to invest in US for this reason other than in public equities or bonds ofc. Private foreign investment in US has been high only due to European pensions and Middle-eastern money going into it.
I don't know about how fair, far, or right it was compared to these were, detaining founders is also not confirmed, but sure let's assume it's true still...
Only difference in US is perhaps foreign folks can sue over it. Sometimes, if they are lucky and if the deal is worth it.
I find it strange people of HN being based in US can be so ill informed of what their country, does to foreign companies but be mad about things foreign companies do to them?
I mean sure rest(96%) of the world doesn't really exist, it's but a myth or a land the better folks of US only want to take value when needed?
Unsure what this comment meant, this has happened before as well btw, these are just post 2010s examples because they are relevant. Russians and US used to do this too, India and US were worse of pre-2000s, Japan and US were at their throats in 1980s, in terms of trade and acquisition...
For China, there are so many examples of people doing 180s and being full of contrition after those interventions, it's hard to imagine anything but severe intimidation or worse happening behind closed doors.
Are you trying to push a red herring?
Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense.
But you cannot seriously hold America up as blameless when we've wielded our economy as a cudgel against anyone we remotely disagree with (sanctions against Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc; tariffs against everybody), have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice, regularly park our navy off foreign shores to coerce desired outcomes, and dronestrike civilians as a final saber-rattling before full-fledged conflict.
The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell, take a look beyond the past thirty years of history and there's a glut of incidents where empires used this sort of leverage to achieve outcomes - including the United States! We've traded political prisoners to achieve negotiated outcomes repeatedly, we just use different words to make ourselves feel better about it. We've propped up entire puppet states to ensure American corporate interests were served instead!
Like, holy shit, why do I have to teach you naysayers what's already outlined in history books just because you can't be bothered to do the assigned reading?
Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia?
I wonder how that came about?
What’s that fence analogy called?
Chester-what?
When the US does something reprehensible, people rarely come up in droves going on and about China's enablement of the North Korean regime or the many abuses enacted on its population, but every single time the US does anything we had to read a whole lot on how "at least China doesn't invade countries" as if the prime reason as to why China doesn't tend to involve itself militarily isn't precisely American hegemony. The rate at which the country is portrayed as some paragon of human rights, equality and peacefulness is either insane, deluded, or paid for.
The media is almost daily full of China scares. Also, the comments here are not talking about who started this war, with the GPU sanctions and the arrest of the daughter of Huawei's founder.
Does it mean the Chinese are the good guys? No, because there are not good guys, but there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?
> there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.
You should have just left it at that.
Whataboutism, used effectively, is meant to draw parallels rather than excuse behavior. Fuck China for what it's doing here, but also fuck the countries and entities who have used similar tactics in the past to great effect. Don't just conveniently put on blinders for what's happening/happened at home all because the government-labelled "baddie" did it too.
There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.
PRC still haven't gone the step up to ban PRC strategic talent from working in US like US has for PRC semi. Don't be surprised in 5-10 years US has to hire PRC workers with obfuscated identities like PRC dealing with US/TW talent in PRC EUV. Plenty more room how these things can escalate depending on how serious PRC starts to treat dual use AI.
"In January, Beijing began investigating Manus for compliance with export controls [...]"
You could make way more money as an AI shill.
So you said today, as you often say that you live in Singapore. Of what nation are you a citizen?
Shou Chew:
Singapore.
Cotton:
Are you a citizen of any other nation?
Chew:
No, Senator.
Cotton:
Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?
Chew:
Senator? I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.
Cotton:
Do you have a Singaporean passport?
Chew:
Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.
Cotton:
Do you have any other passports from any other nations?
Chew:
No, Senator.
Cotton:
Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens?
Chew:
That's correct.
Cotton:
Have you ever applied for American citizenship?
Chew:
No, not yet.
Cotton:
Okay. Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?
Chew:
Senator? I'm Singaporean, no.
Cotton:
Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?
Chew:
No. Senator, again, I'm Singaporean.
seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.
I was working at Google at the time. Before Llama, releasing weights was not even worth a discussion.
You did have to apply for access, but if you met their criteria (basically if you were the right profile of researcher or in government), you got direct access to the model weights, not just an API for a hosted model. So access was restricted, but the full weights were shared.
I believe that the model was leaked by multiple people, some of which didn't work at Meta but had been granted access to the weights.
Interesting. I wonder what sorts of threats China could make to back up this demand, or if this is more of a warning for future acquisitions in the space.
Not to mention how they are openly expansionist in the SCS and obviously wrt Taiwan.
Of course they want to be seen as reasonable, their ideal is to control the international narrative just how they can do it internally in China.
It's a disgusting playbook, but it's also an effective one if you're a state trying to exert control over important players or entities.
* The US and UK propped up the Iranian Shah to help western oil interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
* US Export Controls basically handcuff anyone of import involved in creating anything of value to the state: https://www.investopedia.com/u-s-export-restrictions-6753407
* We continue to embargo Cuba instead of letting it succeed or fail on its own merits - while also controlling their own land for a Black Ops prison and having attempted repeatedly to assassinate their leaders or create coups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
* Our centralization of global finance and status as a reserve currency lets us dictate global policy on everything from Intellectual Property to National Defense, meaning companies generally have to "play ball" or the host country will incur penalties
* That time we overthrew the democratically-elected government of Guatemala because they imposed radical ideas like a minimum wage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état
* And that time we overthrew the democratically-elected socialist government in Chile to prop up exploitative labor practices and resource extraction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27état
I can go on, but really, Wikipedia is right there. If you're looking for a specific analogue to "we kidnapped CEOs and demanded a foreign company unwind their merger", I don't think I can provide that right away; however, if instead you're looking for examples of "country used threats and force to foment an outcome favorable to its domestic policies", well then, boy howdy are there tons and tons of examples out there just a cursory search away.
Complete disregard for human life for profit.
Just like it was reprehensible that America propped up the Iranian shah to ensure western oil interests were served. And reprehensible that the British Empire got the Chinese addicted to Opium to force more favorable trade agreements. Also reprehensible is the Cuban blockade imposed by America, which has prohibited the country from thriving or failing on its own merits and forced suffering onto its people.
It's all reprehensible, and it should all be held up lest folks get this notion that America is this infallible savior who can do no wrong. It's bad, and it should never happen, but it does and it will so long as people keep buying into Nationalist narratives like these.
Many, even most people are pro-slavery and pro-whatever as we speak, even paying to see it happen. They only mouth some useless moralizing words.
okiedokie.
If the US is going to treat AI technology as a strategic issue upon which it's going to play the national security card, it's not really valid to start the pearl-clutching when China does the same.
Seems like Manus and Meta thought they were going to be clever, and that China wasn't going to play any any of the cards they were holding. Even GPT-2 could've told them that was a dumb idea.
Sure they can object to it or claim they are "blocking" the sale, but is there really anything they can do considering that Manus is no longer within their jurisdiction?
Generally speaking this seems bad for Chinese companies, though. They were able to raise capital from the West by running out of "Singapore"; I think basically every investor will have significant pause investing in Chinese-national-owned startups after this, "Singapore-based" or not.
Nationals. The word you are looking for is nationals.
Anyone who has ever thought otherwise was just naive. This is anything but news. If you’ve had an impression that China capital market is free and western-like, you were right - it was an impression. Always has been.
They kept him under house arrest for years and now he complies
The question is are they still controlled by the PRC. China doesn't allow dual citizenship (like other Asian countries), so people might legitimately want to work abroad while keeping their native passport.
That is the leverage that China has.
https://www.metacareers.com/v2/locations/shanghai/?p[offices...
https://www.metacareers.com/v2/locations/hongkong/?p[offices...
I also assume, like most advertising platforms, they cater heavily to the China export market.
From your link it looks like they might do R&D for Oculus in China (but may not even be able to sell it there due to the data-collection tie in required).
Not sure what you mean by catering to the export market. b2b sales would be just as restricted as sales to consumers.
They're not. A significant part of ad spend by the likes of Temu, AliExpress, Shein and other Chinese exporters are on Meta's platforms: e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/31/metas-continued-rally-could-...
China isn't as stupid as the EU, which just says thanks and would you perhaps like to blow up another pipeline?
Hormuz will stay closed by the pirates. LNG terminals are already built in Alaska to supply the Asian "allies", whose economy the US also ruins.
If the EU had any backbone, it would cut off the US from ASML.
Yes, this is about the rest of the world.
ASML depends on a lot of US technologies.