Even encryption technology itself was listed by the US as "national security relevant" or whatever in an attempt to prevent export. The encryption standards published and recommend by the US were also crackable by intelligence agencies for a long time, may still be.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

To your question, this was already really noticeable in his first term. By being brash and uncouth and calling things what they are, rather than using doublespeak or just doing things in the shadows, he made the contradictions of imperialism really uncomfortable for a lot of people. In being direct he created the beginnings of pushback from people who would otherwise be perfectly fine with kids in cages, seizing other countries' natural reources, etc.

I was in the market for a car in the spring, around the time a lot of European officials were complaining about how super cheap Chinese EVs were taking over the European market and putting European manufacturers out of business because of heavy state subsidies or dumping or whatever "non free market" practices they felt like making up.

So I excitedly looked for a cheap but practical Chinese EV, only to find that, at least earlier this year, only luxury models were available. If I wanted a cheap EV it would be a heavily subsidized VW or a heavily subsidized Muskmobile.

Hell, there are libs I know who would look at a .ch domain and say it's fake Chinese propaganda.

The US isn't even the best at that grift. Germany spent about double that over a decade while emissions increased.

Ghost of Delaware

The entire EU supply chain is subsidized.

Just give the worker drones happy pills until they comply.

This is normal.

Capitalism cannot compete with socialism. But of course these Wall Street ghouls will never admit that this is yet another admission that their system only enriches them at the expense of everyone else and the planet.

Pushing Russia into defensive action and blowing up Nord Stream was a really profitable decision for the US oil-weapons-surveillance industry.

A lot of non-profits function as a tax avoidance scheme. They're set up to do, say, some local or international social service as a charity, get donations, and the donors can write these donations off their taxable income. There are also non-profits that produce something and share all proceeds among the workers, but my perception is that those are far less common than the charitable type.

A lot of wealthy people start up their own non-profits as well, so they can "donate" to their own non-profit, write off the donation, and still control where the money is spent.

In any case the workers do typically earn money, but it's often less than they'd get doing a similar job for the state or a For-profit company.

Private property is theft. Overthrow the capitalist class, then we don't have to worry about them surveilling us anymore.