Thread by @lillianmli

Didi’s recent cyber security review seems to be the latest manifestation of an institution masquerading as a tech firm being brought to heel.

Let me explain

Didi has in many ways, become the governing mechanism for a lot of taxis and ride hailing.
However private enterprises optimising for growth have lead to lapses in safety precautions as well as price gauging activities

So the recent reviews are partly due to this, but there’s also additional concerns as Didi has unparalleled view into road usage into China.

Listing on the Nasdaq involves having over usage data to external partners (aka not China). This heightens the possibilities of exposing large vulnerabilities from the government’s perspective.

You can call the Chinese government draconian but as a semi-international relations scholar, I really don’t understand why protecting transport data as part of national security hasn’t been raised against Uber by developing and developed countries’ governments.

I have maintained the stance that tech firms globally are a new form of institutions. This is recognised by some governments but not other. They present a real challenge to national sovereignty and do not have consumer welfare as a core part of their agenda.

Governments who treat tech firms as institutions are increasing cracking down, and I think this will be a trend we see for many government that have the clout to do this.

Many could not rather than would not.