Bluetooth, AirDrop and such file-sharing services are crucial tools in China, where the so-called Great Firewall has resulted in one of the mostly tightly-controlled internet regimes. In recent years, anti-government protesters have often turned to AirDrop to organise and share their political demands. For instance, some activists were sharing anti-Xi Jinping posters using this tool on the Shanghai subway last October - just as the Chinese president was awaiting a historic third term as the country’s leader.
@0x815 next-up: Chinese government will restrict the ability to speak freely.
Oh, wait, they’re already doing it.
how? just… what?
bluetooth has been included on basically every communication capable device manufactured in the last 15+ years, easily hundreds, probably thousands of different manufacturers.
this is an unrealistic expectation.
the apple thing though? easy. apple and the CCP are like besties these days.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I doubt they will. They already added a 10 minute limit in airdrop for the “receive from everyone” setting (China first, now worldwide). From a security perspective it’s a good change but it does block the usefulness of airdrop as a tool for mass messaging.
deleted by creator
Apple has repeatedly giving in to Chinese government because China is a huge market for them. As much as I hate google for many of their practices, they have the basic decency to volunteeringly leave China when their regulations is against the company value.
China is a huge market for them
Yes, and don’t forget that Apple still depends on Chinese factories to assemble its iPhone devices.
Literally 0 sources anywhere and literally invokes 1984
Liberal propaganda is so fucking lazy. Y’all realize this is way closer to what 1984 was actually about right?
deleted by creator
Where in the article did you find that link?
@Venus The sources are clearly defined in the text, you can see that and find the link yourself if you are interested.
That’s just not how citing sources works lol
Oh, we have a genius here. The source, which is the Chinese government, and the way it is cited are both fine.
the way it is cited
The way that it isn’t cited*
It actually is cited, just read it.
You may have missed some points when reading, so here are a few quotes.
The national internet regulator [Cyberspace Administration of China] on Tuesday launched a month-long public consultation on the proposals.
Proposals unveiled by the Cyberspace Administration of China on Tuesday …
Phone and app developers who want to continue operating in China will have to play by the new rules - or be culled from app stores, said a software engineer who wanted to stay anonymous.
(Emphasis mine.)
I agree with you in that it paves the way further to George Orwell’s 1984.
Just saying that someone said something is not citing a source. They taught us this in elementary school.
Why, you’re right! We should go back to the original source, just like we were taught in elementary school, to see what the source says.
Will you look at that! The primary source has a handy article that’s already been linked to you! Here it is again, in case you missed it :)
The source is the Chinese government, @kleinheld provided the link, everyone can easily verify that.
That’s really not relevant unless the user mentioned wrote the article. I’m criticizing the article for not citing sources.
It’s crazy how just reporting on things factually said and done by the CCP will get you called a liberal and a US propagandist. You’ve truly lost the plot.
