It’s an ongoing process that’s currently happening.

It’s really tough when I keep pointing out that your examples are not recent, and you continue to double down. Huawei p40 came out 2020 which is over half a decade ago. I repeatedly pointd out that you do not have any recent examples. Yet, you just keep providing more old models. I really don’t know what else to say here.

This is not a chip either, it’s a phone that isn’t in production anymore. It was succeeded by p50 which was then succeeded by Pura 90. So, if your best example, is a device that’s no longer in production, then you clearly need to retract your claim.

As you must obviously know, harmonyos and hyper have also been evolving since those devices were released just like android and ios have.

To sum up. You’ve provided zero evidence that any phones from Huawei or Xiaomi that are actually in production have vulnerabilities. And your argument that the that older devices have notes on them does not mean newer devices are not supported equally applies to iphone and pixel.

You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions, yet you just won’t retract them. This is frankly bizarre.

indeed

Somehow I doubt they’re eager to experience a repeat of Manchuria in 1945.

I don’t think the oligarchs are suicidal.

The devices in that table are ancient. We just keep going in circles here. Huawei doesn’t even run Android nowadays. I’m starting to get the impression you’re not even reading the links you’re using here. The chart even says this clearly that devices they can brute force are up to 2021:

You’re completely ignoring the contradictions present within China itself here. China still has a capitalist class, and it is still in the primary stages of socialism with the workers having established a class dictatorship over capital, but China is far from abolishing existing relations right now. The collapse of the west is certainly a prerequisite for the transition to any higher stage of socialism, but it will be a long time before relations start meaningfully changing with China itself, let alone the rest of the world.

Let’s not forget that USSR also saw astonishing levels of development under Stalin. The stagnation started after Khrushchev reforms. However, as I noted earlier, China can’t just flip a switch and create some sort of a moneyless society. Dismantling capitalism start with worker ownership of the means of production, and there will be a a prolonged socialist stage where existing relations have not yet been abolished, and the only thing that’s different is which class holds power.

As Stalin correctly explains here, there will be surplus product in a socialist economy and, similarly, the commodity form doesn’t die overnight. Thinking that communism involves slamming a button titled “END CAPITALISM NOW” is just romantic idealist-slop.

when you definitely understand how bilateral trade works

Based on historical data points we clearly see that both Android and iOS devices were vulnerable. Your own links shows this clearly. There is no evidence to suggest that Chinese devices are more vulnerable.

There’s just real world evidence that the devices aren’t as secure as some alternatives.

No, there isn’t. You keep saying this, but you haven’t provided a single source showing that these devices are more vulnerable.

The latest link you provide once again shows that many Android devices are vulnerable. But cellebrite is just one rootkit, not the totality of vulnerabilities either. That’s the whole problem. You’re ignoring what hardware backdoors may be present in US supply chain, and what other rootkits might exist.

Given that the US is a known bad actor, it has to be assumed that these devices are not safe. That’s just the reality of the situation. Meanwhile, Chinese companies have every incentive to make their devices safe from western malware and have zero incentive to put in backdoors for US or Israel in them. That’s what makes these devices inherently safer. The incentives matter.

graphene is at the top, then stock pixel then literally everything else.

Again, this is a baseless claim that is not supported by the evidence you’ve provided. Unless you can show proof that Chinese current devices have vulnerabilities that are not present in current stock Android, then you need to retract your claim.

Always important to remind people that none of these problems existed until the US attacked Iran completely unprovoked.

The pattern is: android devices and old iphones and pixels that need to be updated are vulnerable no matter the country and alliances.

Ok, but what does this have to do with the discussion we’re having here. I never said anything to suggest using old phones and operating systems. I repeatedly said I’m talking about new devices here.

Again, while there could be an argument for a pixel with graphene, it happens to be what I’m currently using because I can’t get a Huawei device in Canada, there is zero evidence that stock pixel or iphone are preferable to LATEST Huawei or Xiaomi for people who have the choice.

loads fine for me 🤷

a lost redditor appears

So that’s still from half a decade ago. Again, it’s not impossible that US and Israel could find vulnerabilities in devices built on an independent stack, but at least it’s not part of the design there. And that means these vulnerabilities get fixed over time. Your support matrix from 2024 does not show a single Chinese made device which proves my point. It’s US based tech stacks that are compromised.

The point I’m making is this. One tech stack might have vulnerabilities due to negligence and human error, the other has backdoors baked in by design.

Just because something is a SoC or not is not really relevant. That’s just a type of architecture. What matters is if the specific implementation is compromised or not. I’m not aware of any evidence that recent Chinese devices are compromised. However, your own link shows that iphones are.

You’re right that chips alone aren’t the deciding factor, but they are the core of the stack, and if your hardware is compromised then it really doesn’t matter what your software is doing at that point.

While there might be a case for graphene being the most secure software stack, the hardware could still betray you and there’s little graphene could do about that. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence for the claim that latest ios or maybe a pixel with the latest android are preferable to HarmonyOS or HyperOS. If anything, you yourself just showed that iOS should not be trusted.

Are there cases of fascists treating others well that you’re aware of?

Sure, but I’d argue good journalism doesn’t have much to do with having a bias. It’s perfectly possible for somebody to write good investigative journalism while having a particular bias. So, it’s not so much about the bias itself, but rather their ability to present the facts, to explain the relationships between the events, and to paint a broader context for the story.

What I think your actual concern might be is regarding deceptive reporting where people try to paint things as something other than what they really are.

Sure, but I don’t find it matters that much when you’re aware of the fact that people have biases as a reader. You can read news from any source and understand the slant of the publication. In fact, it can often be informative to read sources with known biases because the framing itself is informative. For example, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests.

The US can’t touch China because it’s a nuclear superpower, and it produces critical inputs for the US economy. All China has to do is ban exports to the US, and American economy will collapse overnight. We already saw a preview of that during the tariff war.