Thread by @BaldingsWorld

I work hard to avoid RTing anything by this trash outlet and the good CCP propaganda soldiers of the Global Times but for numerous reasons in this case I will make an exception. First, I really should feel hurt that haven't called me names I can put on my Twitter profile. 1/n

Second, this article is really is really a beautiful article in a very twisted way. What I mean by that is the article is actually very serious in tone and language indicating they take the threat of what has been done very serious. As a reader, this signals that 2/n

You should take their words seriously rather than GT typical rhetoric. Next, their logic is very subtly perverse but acceptable to a casual reader. For instance, they say they collect only information that is public. (As a side note that is not true but leave that aside) 3/n

Think about what they are saying: ANY public data, information, can be China's. ANY. They actually write: "Information published on public platfrom may indicate given implied consent." (Spelling error theirs). That is an expansive and perverse data standard in reality 4/n

Next, they say that nothing done is illegal. Illegal how where? They tell you: "as per the civil and data law in China, unless individuals give clear objection or when the disclosure substantially harm their interets...". Spelling error theirs again. Think about 5/n

what is being said here. Two important things. 1. Only applicable law that matters globally in data is Chinese law. I'm sure European citizens and GDPR will be shocked to learn this. 2. If you (wherever you are in the world) have a problem you have to know Zhenhua was doing 6/n

This and take up a legal challenge in China. How do you think that would go? There are multiple other issues with the article. However, in reality this is a master class in persuasive propaganda because it sounds very reasonable with a serious tone but is actually quite perverse