this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
158 points (97.6% liked)

World News

57284 readers
1713 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

Trip.com, owner of travel-booking brands Ctrip, Skyscanner and Qunar, said: “We sincerely accept and will fully comply with it, and will strictly follow the regulator’s requirements to systematically implement each rectification measure, ensuring that all measures are carried out effectively.”

That's one helluva lot of money to be capitulating so completely over. The article doesn't provide any useful information — such as what their annual revenue is — to help decide how reasonable that judgement actually is. Not saying the company doesn't deserve a serious smack-down, but that large a hit would be near fatal for all but the largest companies so some context would be nice.

The complete bending over to the government can be read two ways:

  • The company execs know they don't have a leg to stand on - meaning the evidence against them is especially egregious, which makes one wonder just how they managed to getthat out of hand to begin with (let alone how they thought they could get away with it).

  • The government's power is at such an unreasonable level to the point where they can just impose any "fine" they feel like, and the recipients of said fine are too afraid for their lives to stand up to it and question its validity. Without any additional numbers the article should have provided for context, it's impossible to gauge the likelihood of this.

The reality is that it's likely a bit of both. While the anticompetitive behavior certainly deserved a significant punishment, it's impossible to know just how significant this one is with the (lack of) information provided.

[–] allywilson@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 5 points 4 days ago

Thank you for this, but my point was the scant information provided by the article leaves too much to the imagination. If this is the standard quality of their reporting, it's not a very good source.

[–] djmikeale@feddit.dk 1 points 2 days ago

My guess is it's a variation of your second bullet point: trip wants to keep operating in China due to future earning potential, so it's important for them to stay friendly with the Chinese government.

[–] scytale@piefed.zip 3 points 4 days ago

Oh man, I thought for the longest time Skyscanner was a small independent project. Didn’t know Trip owns them.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

China making an example out of AliExpress Jack Ma is probably leaving a lasting effect