Why are there so few Chinese-language websites?

Good.

because no one makes their own websites, it is all centralized on the few major websites

it's because of the retarded way W3Techs measured "websites" and "webpages"

The only thing that makes their phones good is the ability to steal western designs and patented hardware and produce alternatives for cheap thanks to being the place where it is made and are so inept at software design that they can't choke the phone full of bloatware because they have no idea how to make it.

They can't do shit with technology without stealing, look at their history of CPUs as they tried to make their own in the late 90s, the Fangzhou-1 was their pride and joy released in 2001 and worked about as well as as a Pentium 3. Then Intel opened a fab in the mainland and they stole their tech to start the Loongson series.

Chinese Internet is government controlled. Hence web developers have very limited rights and thus not many websites.

>russian ahead of spanish? serious doubt.jpg
Where is all the Spanish content?
Can't be all forrochoches..

Attached: file.png (516x480, 70K)

Xiaomi literally has a phone line running stock Android (the A series)
MIUI and EMUI are a million times better than Samahit's Touchpiss

>stealing
It's funny how when it come to the China boogeymen the act is theft but when it comes to everyone else, it's "innovation". Google, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, nVidia, etc. are all guilty of both ripping off other companies but also suppressing competition from doing similar things. Thanks to spending billions of buying up patents and bullying smaller companies with frivolous law suits, smaller companies couldn't possible afford to take to court, even if they are in the right, and end up effectively going bankrupt in outside settlements.
But yeah, "China steals".

>why does the country with very little freedom of expression score poorly in a stat related to freedom of expression

Attached: donkey kong wait a sec consider.png (426x306, 208K)

You didn't seem to comprehend the OP's question. He asked for websites, which are discrete numbers, and gave a graph, which shows how many Chinese websites there are.

You linked to a study that weights usage. So if 900,000,000 Chinese use 2 websites, it would factor that in and weigh it more heavily than 500,000,000 Latin Americans over 2,000 websites. That, in fact, is not what the OP is asking.

Brainlet.

>Google, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, nVidia, etc. are all guilty of both ripping off other companies
And they've been sued to oblivion.
When people (as in, laowai) sue Chinese companies, nothing happens.

This is what people complain about, you daft mong.

>Hence web developers have very limited rights and thus not many websites.
A few seconds on Google.

Attached: Capture.png (710x407, 24K)

>4.2 million
The global 1 BILLION mark for total websites was passed in 2014. A few seconds on Google.

Attached: millipede_small.jpg (400x299, 16K)

>And they've been sued to oblivion.
No, they aren't.
>When people (as in, laowai) sue Chinese companies, nothing happens.
The same for American companies.

>This is what people complain about
I'm sure retards like you love to complain about made up shit all the time in order to fuel your baseless tribalism and overcome feelings of inferiority that an alien culture that was supposed to be primitive is in fact anything but.
You're like a school bully trying to dob on the kid who bothered to stand up to you. Americans are pathetic.

Your point?

And can you disprove OP's chart? So far you haven't.

I’d say on average th number of websites visited by a Chinese person or day exceeds an Americans.

I don't need to disprove the chart in the op. It is without source or description; it can be ignored outright.

You seem to think Americans use tons of websites but they really only use a few. YouTube is one website.

You're not proving anything though. You're just throwing numbers arbitrarily without disproving my point about web developers having very limited rights as a result of governmental control on the Internet. Similarly, let's not forget that 4.2 million is merely a fraction of total websites in all. You're being very vague here.

That’s not your point, so he shouldn’t disprove it. Your assertion was that web developers having to comply with government regulations results in fewer websites.

>No, they aren't.
>The same for American companies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_litigation
Woah look, Google losing lawsuits. Even one to Mian Mian, a Chinese national over... copyright.

techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/

And Google getting sued by the EU for antitrust.

appleworld.today/blog/2015/8/6/apple-hangs-onto-its-title-as-the-most-sued-company

Apple is quite literally the most sued company on the planet. On the graph is Samsung, which is not an American company.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

Much like Google, it also has its own wikipedia page for results.

theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048246/microsoft-lawsuit-payouts-usd9-billion

Microsoft has paid out $9 billion. Scroll halfway down and you'll see a nice fat red chart of the plaintiffs, including a Guatemalan inventor.

I won't bother searching the rest of them, since I'm sure your 80 IQ CCP-defending shill brain can handle it. American companies sue, American companies get sued, justice is served... unlike in China, which rips people off wholesale. And by "people," I mean mostly North Americans and Europeans.

>Your point?
China is 18% of the world's population and owns 0.4% of its websites. If that doesn't point to a cultural disparity to you, I don't know what would.

Attached: 1300359725046.png (215x223, 20K)

>Australian flag defends China
Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Those companies are too big to care for some small lawsuits. China just cuts the middle man out and focuses on progress.

>He asked for websites
You are the one that misunderstood my statement, which is that websites like W3Techs and others like Internetworldstats that spawned after 2007 when FunRedes stopped carrying out studies are very biased in the way they count websites, webpages and the distribution of languages on the internet.

I cannot screenshot the most relevant segments from the Funredes studies right now but you can read the whole thing on the link I posted

>Those companies are too big to care for some small lawsuits
Incorrect. The EU is hitting Google with an antitrust suit that takes proportion of profit, in this case I believe it is 40%. That is an utter fuckton of money.

>and focuses on progress.
Parasitism is not a form of progress, since the parasite can never grow to be larger than the host.

It is not what people complain about. What people complain about are “forced technology transfers”, essentially the government forcing companies to sell, rather than rent, their patents to Chinese companies when they do business there.

>proportion of profit,
Sorry I misspoke, it's revenue, which is obviously much worse

Well it’s clearly not parasitism— many large US companies that have done business in China have been phenomenally successful and made billions of dollars in profit.

>It is not what people complain about.
Yes it is, unless you don't consider an ex-DNI as a person.

nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/china-us-intellectual-property-trump.html

>Chinese companies, with the encouragement of official Chinese policy and often the active participation of government personnel, have been pillaging the intellectual property of American companies. All together, intellectual-property theft costs America up to $600 billion a year, the greatest transfer of wealth in history. China accounts for most of that loss.

>What people complain about are “forced technology transfers”, essentially the government forcing companies to sell, rather than rent, their patents to Chinese companies when they do business there.

Unlike the copyright issue, forced technology transfers are voluntary, almost like a Faustian gambit with the CCP to do business in their territory. While it's not admirable, I don't consider this to be a particularly egregious affront to justice since those businesses are reaping what they sow. It's like complaining "I paid a hooker with AIDS $50 to bareback me and now I have AIDS!"

The Serb said "progress," which I interpreted as technological progress. Yes corporations are making hand over fist in money, American and Chinese both. If China is stealing American and European corporate technology without developing a culture of R&D and innovation to underpin that, it can only grow so large. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but for the longest period of time after Rome collapsed (one of the pinnacle hubs of technology) very few important scientific discoveries were made. This is because barbarian parasites looted the cement temples and buildings with plumbing of their valuables, but never learned how to -make- cement or plumbing, so those secrets were lost for centuries. If barbarian parasites formed Greek academies instead of looting, they could have outgrown their host (using my analogy)

Attached: 1298644229843.jpg (126x126, 11K)

China is on the cutting edge of IoT and machine learning and is developing r and d extensively in tech. You can think otherwise it doesn’t really matter.

When has cutting edge meant 2nd and 7th place? I won't bring up the 93rd one since "data openness" is nebulous. Best case scenario is that it's just a bunch of facial data for Xinjiang residents who China want to force their police state upon and track, worst case scenario is that much like all of the Chinese scientific literature that no one quotes because it's mostly junk (elsevier.com/connect/china-reigns-in-on-identity-fraud-over-concerns-of-author-reviewer-authenticity) no one cares about the openness of Chinese data because it's junk data.

Again, it's not worth speculating because being secretive about methods and data is the exact opposite of science. You can't replicate experiments using the scientific method this way, so it's a monkey's ass in terms of verifiability.

Attached: file.png (779x617, 90K)

insectoids are not human
their relevance stems from their willingness to live and die for the hive, slaving away for the entire duration of their miserable lives, working 16 hours a day in shitty factories for pennies
as soon as complete automation becomes viable they will have no purpose, probably they will happily mass suicide

>China is 18% of the world's population and owns 0.4% of its websites
bro just look at the very retarded way W3Techs reached to those figures, they first of all get their data from the top ten million websites from Alexa (which only represents around 0.25% of all know websites) and we know that Alexa has also an English language bias, a Western bias and a Latin alphabet bias, so with that alone you shouldn't expect their figures to be that relevant, the other problem with their methodology is that they only take into account the homepage of the website to assign the languages, for example Wikipedia is counted as a 100% English language website even though according to Wikimedia itself only around 12% of all Wikipedia articles are written in English, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter and others are also counted as being 100% English, and yet another issue is that they don't count subdomains as different websites, etc.

Those lawsuits are irrelevant to the conversional, user. We are talking about giant American corporations dictating the marketplace while shutting down the smaller competition they ripped off.

>I won't bother searching the rest of them
Nor will you bother reading something before responding to it.

>China is 18% of the world's population and owns 0.4% of its websites
You haven't provided any source or methodology for deriving this figure, therefore it is irrelevant. I've shown you evidence of a report which states that there has been a surge of Chinese websites over the past few years, which flies in the face of the claim that Chinese webdevs and Chinese in general are not really able to create websites of their own.

Yes, I'm Chinese when it suits you. Pakistani when it suits you. Irish when it suits you. Anglo when it suits you. America-lite when it suits you. Aboriginal Australian when it suits you. We Australians are like particles, merely observing us changes our properties.

thestrangecontinent.com/2016/09/25/when-roman-barbarians-met-the-asian-enlightenment/

This probably doesn't include the Chinese intranet, and China's intranet is mostly large companies. You have to get the a license from the party to buy a .cn doman.

>The EU is hitting Google with an antitrust suit that takes proportion of profit, in this case I believe it is 40%. That is an utter fuckton of money.
That's nothing, less then what they generate in a year. They also haven't been prohibited from continuing their market monopoly practices which generates then billions in revenue every financial quarter. The lawsuit was symbolic at best. A political stunt.

>bro just look at the very retarded way W3Techs
I'm not using W3techs, I'm using his data plus Netcraft. Go Google "1 billion website mark 2014" or something like that.

These people don't care about intellectual honesty, just whatever figures they can latch onto into order to support ideology.

Read my correction before responding to me. The proportion of global revenue is 5% daily, for each day that they continue their monopoly practice. So yes,
>They also haven't been prohibited from continuing their market monopoly practices which generates then billions in revenue every financial quarter.
is implicitly penalized

China is not penalized because the CCP invests in the very cheaters (state enterprises) who are ripping European and American technology off. No wonder copyright suits are thrown out. Would you ask a wolf who has killed your chickens for stand trial as it has feathers poking out of its mouth?

Dumb chink Australia should throw you out just like they should throw out Ernest Wong.

theage.com.au/politics/federal/this-sitting-labor-mp-has-been-cultivated-by-chinese-intelligence-20180627-p4znzp.html

>I'm not using
You're not using anything. You've yet to post a single source with a single reference to the methodologies involved.

>Read my correction before responding to me
Read the actual argument, nothing you have added to the conversation is relevant.

>is implicitly penalized
No they aren't.
>who are ripping European and American technology off.
No they aren't.

See

>Australia should throw you out
We should also throw the Americans out of Australia. They are running intelligence and military operations on our land and no one wants them here. The USA is a fucking parasite.

>mfw the government austerity cuts start to hit state sponsored Jow Forums

Attached: 1519622325202.jpg (774x417, 62K)

>You're not using anything.
Yes I did, I did the exact same thing as you: "a few seconds on google," top result.

>You've yet to post a single source with a single reference to the methodologies involved.
And you have not posted Chinadaily's methodology.

>Read the actual argument
Read the actual article I posted, the one from Techcrunch.

>The European Commission has fined Google a record-breaking €2.42 billion (~$2.73BN) for antitrust violations pertaining to its Google’s Shopping search comparison service — in what is widely considered the most significant antitrust ruling in Europe since the 2004 Microsoft decision.

>The Commission said the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google’s revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned.

Your argument is "they are penalized for what they make in a year," and "they haven't been prohibited from continuing their market monopoly practices," one of which is nonsense and the other of which is false. The EU is not tapping them with a one-time fee that they can shrug off, they are hitting them in daily revenue to force them to either change or become unprofitable in Europe and leave. If you don't think 5% revenue is significant, you're either a very oblivious NEET who has never worked a day in his life, or more realistically, you are a Chinese Australian traitor.

>No they aren't.
See to the tune of $600 billion per year.

Yes "no one wants them here" when Australia is part of the Five Eyes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes. You know, that organization where EVERYTHING we gather we share with YOU, and everything YOU gather you share with US. And it's worked quite well for all five of us into the 21st century.

Much like a Russian would love to see relations between the EU and USA destroyed, so too would a Chinese fifth column love to see America sever its ties with our Australian friends. You're a fucking fifth column.

Attached: file.png (659x904, 184K)

It would be in line with pathological history of the Black Plague, if Chinese either directly or indirectly spread it (possibly through Central Asians too) to Rome.

nytimes.com/2010/11/01/health/01plague.html

Much like European adventurers brought smallpox to the Americas killing 90% of North America and a high number of South Americans, it's interesting to consider that the Chinese too brought a plague that killed 50% of Europeans (multiple times, if we count the Justinian plague as well as the 1300s plague). Of course, since the Chinese were not in the position to colonize Europe afterward, we'll never hear the "gibmedats" of Italians toward the Chinese for reparations, or the subsequent yellow guilt. Maybe they should try...

Because Chinese spend mostly time in shaolines temples preparing for the final fight against Amerifats.

Attached: monks_at_shaolin_temple_where_the_world_renowed_shaolin_kung_fu_was_originated._shi_xing_wu_master_y (1280x720, 218K)

>smallpox to the Americas killing 90% of North America

Lel, sure.

quora.com/How-many-Native-Americans-were-killed-between-1600-1900

The spam filter is hitting pic related hardcore due to the string of numbers, so just Ctrl+F "Genocide and American Indian History" on that Quora and it'll take you there:

>Advocates of the “yes it was genocide” position have generally accepted high estimates for the pre-Columbian population and a correspondingly very high figure for initial depopulation. If 75 million people lived in in the Western Hemisphere in 1491 and the death toll from epidemic disease was 70, 80, or even 90 percent (as was sometimes the case), the sheer numbers (50–60 million) are overwhelming and compel recognition as genocide when measured against the numbers for commonly accepted cases of genocide in the twentieth century.2

>Ironically, however, an emphasis on a very high number for initial depopulation can provide an opening for a counter position. Since Europeans who brought pathogens to the Western Hemisphere did not do so with the intention of killing indigenous people and since under many definitions intentionality is a crucial criterion for genocide, a high number can be used to support a “no it was not genocide” position on the grounds that the vast majority of deaths do not qualify

The citation links to "David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)"

Attached: file.png (1020x922, 180K)