Did you actually watch the videos, or do you just look at the title and make your conclusion? Here’s some more:
https://youtu.be/zt7afB22S1U?si=JcN7vZrswgtLS69G
https://youtu.be/Ug2Eeflo5ao?si=5J9HwdLwOJuRctQS
https://youtu.be/CTU0FNo5HE8?si=0q1vp_t3SEzd4OUQ
And here’s some more pro-Japan/Korea content:
https://youtu.be/T30C3-K-PmA?si=KgioEIEVDli5SCqi
https://youtu.be/VucIYdBvsCM?si=l8xbHPOWBblQi0CP
What exactly is this viscerally anti-Japan/Korea government content you speak of?
We’ve had US intelligence telling us for years that the Russians can rig an election with a piece of paper and some string. What exactly did you think was going to happen?
Turns out Americans don’t even need the string to rig an election.
Those links still aren’t first-party sources, though? Either way, I quoted from that article and I did provide first-party evidence, neither of which you have addressed. There is nothing to indicate that, as you claim, SCMP only posts pro-China and anti-Korea/anti-Japan content.
Do you enjoy being confidently wrong, or do you just enjoy being confident and are wrong by circumstance?
Ah yes, because you refuse to see evidence contradicting your point (i.e. first party source) and choose to hide behind second- and third-party “sources.”
Classic.
I’m an idiot because I gave you videos contrary to your point? How is it my fault that Google thinks you’re on an anti-Japan/anti-Korean binge?
Not everything is a conspiracy against you. Google thought that those recommendations would get you to think about YouTube more (and eventually watch more content). Judging by your behaviour, I’m guessing it was right.
I can find an anti-China video:
https://youtu.be/eI6a4xRwLQQ?si=1c5yJlUutFDpy7jr
https://youtu.be/0AOUKMZOImM?si=9YTZcJA1O30rp-5y
https://youtu.be/DHl89m6dkYY?si=_VAqL2waYsdffyvg
https://youtu.be/9xhwKeqG_p8?si=JgGYnZH8SB9aiCpc
Meanwhile your source is… Fucking Wikipedia lmfao. The article isn’t even cited properly given that it mentions 3 sources and only links to two. There’s a reason Wikipedia isn’t considered a reliable source.
Ah yes, citing Wikipedia… who’s sources explicitly state that Beijing never contacts them and that Jack Ma’a policy has been to be skeptical of the government’s role. Classic.
It’s only Beijing that we never hear from, he says. He adds that he wishes that were different.
…
Describing the ideal relationship between companies and the government, Jack Ma has said something along the lines of: “Go ahead and flirt with it, but don’t marry it.”
…
The paper still reports extremely critically on issues that the Chinese state media avoids.
…
Executive Vice President Joseph Tsai, for example, has complained that the Western media reports on China in a biased and one-sided way because they disagree with communism. He has said that the South China Morning Post should report on things “as they are.”
Turns out, when you shift your focus from being a purely Hong Kong-oriented paper to an international one, your editorial scope changes.
When in Hong Kong writing about mainland China, you can afford to be more critical because your readership has a pretty fair view of mainland China (given that, y’know, they’re literally right beside it}. When writing for the international audience, there are far more things that need to be cleared up.
As I showed above, SCMP is clearly deviating pretty far from Beijing’s policy (in large part because Alibaba and Jack Ma have always maintained a somewhat skeptical stance relative to the government) and often comes out openly against Beijing’s positions. All you’ve shown me is people saying “oh no but Alibaba is Chinese and China is bad and thus SCMP is bad.” Just the tiniest but racist, don’t you think?
Doesn’t SoftBank/Yahoo hold almost a majority of Alibaba stock… And that Alibaba explicitly didn’t list in Hong Kong and chose to list in the US instead?
SCMP has published some fairly critical articles recently:
“China’s hi-tech ambitions under threat from inadequate scientific literacy”
“‘Somebody has to eat the cost’: China’s monumental local debt challenge mounts”
“China banning clothes that hurt national feelings would be a sitch too far”
And articles that deviate from standard Chinese policy:
“Marriage equality is clearly the best choice for Hong Kong”
“More LGBTQ rights could help Asia financial hubs draw global talent”
As well as commentary on the Hong Kong report about radiation from Japan-imported fish.
Nevermind that Jack Ma is perhaps most notorious for being intensely critical of Chinese regulators. Indeed, Alibaba IPOed in the US instead of Hong Kong solely so Jack Ma could maintain more control over the governance structure of the company.
The truth is hard, sometimes.
Ah yes, SCMP is truly a pro-China news source. Nevermind that it’s blocked in mainland China.
Most people from hexbear provide sources, which is better than can be said for all the tankie hate.
I mean, you were never blocked from replacing ICs. Most people just didn’t have the capability to solder. Today, IC replacement is blocked by hardware DRM.
Gender pronouns exist mostly because our society ties so many societal norms to gender. If people weren’t sexist animals, it wouldn’t really be a problem.
Lemmy needs a refpost system where you can choose to post articles to different instances that link together.
You then can get all the benefits of centralization without necessarily being centralized.
Lemmy.ca is the superior instance and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Suicide or accident?
Derailment or provoking someone with a gun, I’m guessing?
Or even just less beef tbh. Beef is literally the most inefficient meat on the planet and it’s not even close.
Businesses are allowed cars
Tell me you haven’t read the Communist Manifesto without telling me you haven’t read the Communist Manifesto.