[miroljub]

I wonder why the question about data security and training comes often with DeepSeek, Kimi, Glm and never with Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google models.

Why is that?

IIRC, USA data protection protects data of US citizens only, foreigners data is not protected, and the companies are not even allowed to disclose when they collect those data.

[zeendo]

Because Anthropic, at least, gives you the option to opt out of training? I think Google and OpenAI do, too.

[Matl]

> USA data protection protects data of US citizens only, foreigners data is not protected

HN is an American site. If you look at the US government, it is going to fearmonger about anything China related, because they haven't had a genuine competitor for decades and they're scared and lashing out. Most US news just parrot the government line, sometimes more so than state TV would, and so it reflects here.

I also feel comfortable saying that many Americans don't care one bit what happens to foreigners, be it by action of their government or companies.

[giwook]

> I also feel comfortable saying that many Americans don't care one bit what happens to foreigners, be it by action of their government or companies.

This is true. There are also many of us who do care.

This brings to mind something I heard recently about the so-called "Rule of 10". There will always be 3 people who support you, 3 people who are against you, and 4 people who have no idea what's going on and don't care.

Don't just focus on the 3 people who are being negative.

[Matl]

Oh absolutely.

[boondongle]

Wolf Warrior diplomacy isn't even 10 years dead. The HK treaty was violated and continues to be. Taiwan gets threatened every other week.

People can have problems with America and I'm fine with that. But pretending China isn't subsidizing industry (land, education, transportation) in a predatory fashion is silly. Too many companies have gone out of business because of it. We can all have our friends in China without pretending the CCP is playing the ballgame fairly. The government doesn't need to point it out. That doesn't even get into influence operations (which are especially easy on platforms like this.)

Seriously - there may be a day in the future where Western nations and China get along but it really can't/won't happen while it's holding all the industry and trying to take the Services income as well.

[Matl]

The US assisted a genocide, literally kidnapped the president of a sovereign country so it could take its oil, threatened its own allies with invasion and started a war of aggression against another so that it can take their oil, all in a span of a few months.

But tell me more.

[lostdog]

Yes, if you just list 3 more problems about the US then it means that China has no problems at all.

[Matl]

No it means that perhaps the US should finally start looking at itself instead of just asserting that it doesn't need to because China.

That doesn't mean China should not be criticized. But to me it's clear that the China blame game is not about a genuine concern for Chinese people or its neighbors, it's about trying to keep it down because China should never dared to rise in the first place.

Anglo Saxons and maybe the French should be in charge and the rest should be resource colonies. It very much feels like that Western mentality is still there.

[beedeebeedee]

> No it means that perhaps the US should finally start looking at itself instead of just asserting that it doesn't need to because China.

Agreed, the US definitely needs to do some introspection to sort out its own shit (and stop spraying it on everyone else).

However, that does not mean that China gets a pass. Fundamentally, the Chinese model of governance does not protect the individual. For all its faults, the US model is based upon the idea of individual liberty, which acts as a touchstone and allows it to self-correct whenever it goes to far in the wrong direction. That's something the Chinese model does not do, and means that, short of a revolution, it will continue to be an authoritarian state with all of the malignant features that entails.

[SJMG]

> also feel comfortable saying that many Americans don't care one bit what happens to foreigners, be it by action of their government or companies

What's the point of this kind of statement for you? Does this help you understand others or just continue to drive the wedge in? Where are you from? Ask yourself can the statement,

"many {of my country} don't care one bit what happens to foreigners, be it by action of the government or companies" not be read as true?

There are self-absorbed, disinterested, uncompassionate people in every country which will satisfy your "many" qualifier.

[Matl]

I am from Europe. I feel comfortable saying that many in Europe do not care about what their governments or companies do to foreigners, (at least not enough to inform themselves about it).

However looking at the polls in the US gives you a fairly decent idea that there's a decent chunk of people that seem to get off on violence towards non-Americans. Why do you think ICE went with the violent tactics it did?

As to

> What's the point of this kind of statement for you? Does this help you understand others or just continue to drive the wedge in?

The point is to maybe make some Americans ask what it is that they can do to reform the government they have the most direct influence over (their own) instead of trying to reassure themselves that theirs is still better than country's X.