I don't get it. It's US companies standing to loose their stronghold (near monopoly) on social, advertisement, and other forms of monetizing the web if the US creates a precedent for "national security" in this way, as in "we're welcoming social networks and free speech as long as it benefits the US and can be searched without warrant." Quite predictably, governments all over the world will be pressurized to question why they should give US companies (bred by teethless US antitrust) a free pass to destroy their publishing industry. Publishers themselves will put this onto the agenda in their own best interest. The French are already on the fence to create new digital tax legislation after EU/US negotiation have been aborted by the US side. Maybe hurting Google, Facebook, Twitter & co is seen as desired collateral damage?
China doesn’t allow many western companies to operate in China. Why should the US allow Chinese companies to operate in the US??
This is an outrage that we should not allow. They steal our intellectual property, create state funded companies that are given monopoly access to their markets, and then unleash their stolen products on the world market. And if American or other western companies try to compete on the ground in China, they can’t.
Would WeChat or TikTok exist if western chat and social media apps were given total access to Chinese markets??? Extreme doubt.
The eventual end result of bending over to China is a world where all of the goods, services, and software are owned by China. This imbalance that China has created is unworkable and cannot be allowed to continue.
>Why should the US allow Chinese companies to operate in the US?
The US gains very substantial economic benefits from being an attractive place for international companies to do business. Foreign investors know that when they invest in America, they're getting a stable regulatory environment and a reasonably trustworthy civil legal system. If America decides to undermine that trust for short-term gain, there will be a substantial long-term cost.
You might believe that hostile trade policies prevent American companies from competing in the Chinese market, but that's starkly contradicted by the number of American companies for whom China is a key market. Apple earn $11bn a year in China. Wal-Mart have thousands of stores there. Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) have 40% of the Chinese fast food market and make more revenue there than anywhere else. Starbucks have 70% of the Chinese coffee market. The shelves of Chinese convenience stores are groaning with American-owned brands.
An all-out trade war with China might be appealing, but be under no illusions that it'll be all upside for America. If China want to put the hurt on America, they have more levers to pull and more staying power. It's definitely not a fight you want to lose, but it might not even be a fight worth winning.
China aren't thinking about next quarter or next year, they're thinking about the next generation. Where does the US see itself in 2050?
According to Lee Kai-Fu who launched Google in China: "Chinese laws are clear about what foreign companies can do to operate in China. In TikTok's case, though, the company was left no choice but to consider a forced sale."
China doesn't not allow western companies to operate. Google proactively made the choice to exit China. I'm not arguing that they should have elected to follow Chinese laws but the actions the Chinese government took with western companies was not to either tell them to stop existing in the Chinese market or abdicate their ownership to a domestic company.
> China doesn’t allow many western companies to operate in China.
This is simply false, yet it gets repeated on every discussion about China.
Western companies are everywhere in China, and they make massive revenues there. The presence of Chinese companies in the West is tiny by comparison (if you want proof, just look at FDI figures in each direction). Anyone who's spent time in both places can see this.
It's very difficult to discuss China-US trade issues when so many people begin from completely false assumptions about what the present situation is.
When you say "steal" and "imbalance that China has created" - you expect to move almost all design, planning and manufacturing to China gradually over decades of time, give them all the technology because they are just "low-level workers", embrace what they build themselves because it's cheaper and good enough, and for them to be happy, in perpetuum, to receive a fraction of the profits? This situation was not created by China - it's just completely expected consequences of decades of un-strategical behavior which is now starting to bite back.
Google's dragonfly would allow it to operate in China. It didn't because of domestic pressure, not the Chinese government. There used to have a huge debate of that here on Hackernews. It would not be fair to say that China banned Google for protectionism reasons. At least for China, the government have a standard, a list of censorship requirement to follow. There are things a company can do to operate in China. While here now at the US, it's protectionism that targeted a specific company without doubt. I'd hardly call that the rule of law, would you?
> Would WeChat or TikTok exist if western chat and social media apps were given total access to Chinese markets???
WeChat caters to the needs of Chinese users. As far as I know, WeChat invented integration of payments in messaging apps and Western apps like Messenger and iMessage copied that. I don't think the Western apps have QR payments, which is very important to Chinese. And I don't think a Western app would have come up with the group hongbao exchange feature.
TikTok doesn't have a surviving American equivalent so, yes. Definitely it would exist.
TikTok has only recently had any competitors from the west, and WeChat is still far and beyond any chat platform the west has offered. I have extreme doubt the western companies would at all be able to compete in China. They don't get the culture, they have inferior features and inferior user experience.
In fact, if the west weren't so racist I suspect WeChat would dominate just like TikTok is dominating in the west.
Isn't this just reciprocity? China banned a long list of media companies: FB, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, and every traditional media. Now the US is banning two apps made in China.
It's only reciprocity if you divide the world into two tribes, the "China tribe" and the "US tribe". Someone from the "China tribe" did something bad to the "US tribe", so now we're going to grab a random member of the "China tribe" and punish them for it, even if they're not the one responsible. I used to think the Western world had abandoned that kind of collective punishment, but apparently not.
It ceases to be reciprocal if you distinguish groups at an only slightly higher resolution: Chinese businesses like TikTok and WeChat and American businesses like Google and Facebook in addition to the Chinese and American governments. The Chinese government demanded that all businesses censor content, but Google and Facebook had most of their users outside China, so they could choose not to comply and still survive. Whereas TikTok and WeChat didn't have that luxury and censor their Chinese users (TikTok by offering Douyin as a separate product and making TikTok unavailable in China, WeChat by censoring messages in conversations with at least one Chinese participant). So far, both Chinese and American businesses were bullied by the Chinese government. Now the US government decided to "reciprocate" and ... decides to bully businesses as well, but only Chinese ones. Great justice.
If TikTok or WeChat have done anything wrong they deserve to be punished for, then sue them, or, if it's not illegal, make a new law that requires them to stop doing whatever it is. That law should then also apply to Google and Facebook, just in case they might be tempted to try the same thing.
But having the president order arbitrary punishment without proof of guilt (what happened to presumption of innocence?) looks like a dictatorship to me. Maybe I'm just biased by living in a parliamentary democracy where the voting system aims for proportional representation.
>Isn't this just reciprocity? China banned a long list of media companies: FB, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, and every traditional media. Now the US is banning two apps made in China.
This really could be the end of the thread. For years China has banned systems and applications from other parts of the world. The fact it has taken this long to respond with action is stupefying. China would like the benefits of an open internet, but don't want to participate.
The decision is 100% appropriate, but wasn't handled in the best manner.
That's not a wholly accurate characterisation. The internet is regulated in China, in the same way that broadcast media is regulated in the US. You might vehemently disagree with the specifics of Chinese media regulation, but the regulatory principle is the same.
Foreign media companies that choose not to go through the Chinese regulatory system are blocked from operating in China. Google and Facebook have chosen not to operate in China rather than comply with their regulations, but many American media companies have, most prominently the Walt Disney Company.
There is a fundamental difference between having a legible and uniform regulatory system and arbitrarily banning companies based on the whims of the executive. If a Chinese company started beaming satellite TV channels into the US that flagrantly violated FCC rules, we would fully expect the FCC to take strenuous enforcement action. You or I might consider Chinese attitudes to freedom of speech abhorrent, but the regulation of Chinese media is a matter of Chinese sovereignty.
I think reciprocal would be more like the 50% local ownership plus government oversight just like China does. It just doesn't look good that they're singled out to be sold off 100% seemingly for being successful with their only issue being that they have been hoovering up data which isn't that unusual for an app.
China didn't ban them, they just asked them to play by Chinese Rules. I think it should be the same. Instead of Banning the US should setup what US rules they expect international companies to play by, as should the EU etc.
There's douyin for china and tiktok for everywhere else.
Chinese companies go to the effort of creating separate apps to comply with the laws and cultures of other countries. Why can't American companies do the same and obey Chinese law? Yet again, "American Exceptionalism" strikes again.
Also see LinkedIn and Bing, which disproves the idea that it's all some plot masterminded by Beijing to only allow Chinese companies to succeed.
If you claim to stand for free trade, you can't go along in these protectionism wars without losing a lot of credibility and, along with that, soft power.
In one way, yes, it seems like reciprocity, but the impact here seems to be larger than a diplomatic dispute: China is communist, US is free (in terms of public imaging). So in that positioning, while China as a communist, authoritarian nation would be the type to ban online services, the US is supposed to be "better than that."
In any case, I think that the result of this is more that TikTok will sell at an even cheaper price, since it's coming from a position of weakness, not strength. And for WeChat -- who in the west actually uses it? The impact there I believe is a slight dip in Tencent Holdings' stock price, which will quickly bounce back.
>Isn't this just reciprocity? China banned a long list of media companies: FB, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, and every traditional media.
Yes, which is bad for China, because it robs the Chinese people of choice. As Milton Friedman said when speaking on tariffs, "why do to yourself what you do to an enemy at war?"
China engages in censorship and limits the freedom of their people, so we're going to do the same to stick it to them? Excuse me if I don't see the logic
I don't think that's reciprocity. China has punished its citizens for being born in China by banning FB et al. In response, the US has punished its own citizens by banning WeChat et al. Reciprocity would mean that Xi is banned from using Facebook while Trump is banned from WeChat.
This "we'll be like the worst examples in the rest of the world" is not a winning strategy. It is simply remarkable that anyone in the US, much less anyone learned, could cheer this nonsense on.
Further Trump didn't just say they had to be sold, but instead they have to be sold specifically to a US buyer. That is...incredible. He is effectively engaged in technology piracy. Then again he just announced new tariffs on Canadian aluminum -- leaving Russian and Chinese aluminum untouched, and just after the ratification of the revised NAFTA -- under the guise of "national security", so it's into serious parody territory now.
The US is currently a corrupt banana republic.
Regardless, China has an enormous number of US targets they can and likely will retaliate against. And when they do, be sure to thank Trump.
Reciprocity doesn't justify repressing human rights. The pursuit of happiness is a human right. Some people pursue happiness by making dancing mobile apps and earning money with them. If China decides to limit that right it doesn't justify the US also limiting that right.
Of course this is tiny compared to the much more extreme human rights violations we see in China, the US, and elsewhere. But we should uphold rights and rule of law in all cases.
Nothing is banned, you follow domestic censorship laws you get to play. Every domestic companies has to, it's onerous, and level playing fields. FB, Google still sell billions in ads to China, they were engineering compliant services to return.
Legal reciprocity is China following US laws, which it does. Functional reciprocity is forcing Chinese companies to enter JV and tech transfer - while providing Chinese companies massive land and tax subsidies. I'm sure TikTok would love that compared to forced sales.
But just to be clear, while I shit on US a lot, there's rational grounds for banning Chinese media companies only because there's such structural asymmetry, i.e. even if twitter was legal, it can't be weaponized to undermine Chinese interests because it must comply to Chinese censorship laws. But this EO is just a dumb way to do it because it opens US interests to much more global blowback. US is pissed at these companies domestically, the international resentment is even greater.
But if Chinese social media firms are freely operating in the USA why can't the likes of FB and Twitter be allowed same free access in their market. Let's not see this as harming anybody but this is one of the ways to force China to open up and allow foreign businesses(social media) to spread in their domain. Imagine being forced to open a WeChat account just to chat with someone in China. If this kind of business model is allowed to continue only Chinese companies would thrive in the future.
EU countries don't get to have "national security" that conflicts with the US to more than a trivial extent, like the Airbus/Boeing conflict. That's been a tradeoff that was accepted since the end of WW2. The US now complains about Europe not having strong militaries, having forgotten that for decades it was policy to discourage Europe from having strong militaries in case that started another war.
The US and China only get to play the national security card like this because of a high degree of conventional military and economic power.
TBH I can see how Tesla could be labelled that, and if it was a Chinese company I'd suspect it would eventually, the spying potential from all those streaming cameras and AI without any insight or oversight of the process.
Germany is in bed with the US, especially the secret service.
Well Tesla's sentry mode and sensor suite that is connected to the internet could actually pose a massive security risk. I wouldn't be surprised if they were banned from entering military installations and other sensitive areas, not that Germany has that many of them that aren't open to US military personnel.
Politicians tend to be shortsighted (reelection, next term). That's partly why not enough has happened (or will happen, under this political paradigm) when it comes to the environmental issues our habitat is facing.
The understanding that the US would respond in kind by banning the import of VW Group vehicles or putting a very high tariff on them. In any case it wouldn’t be in Germany’s interest with the new Tesla factory going up there.
They declared the touch controls for the windshield wipers a distraction, so that they can fine Tesla owners for using it. In my opinion, creating liability for the buyer will be much more effective than trying to battle Tesla directly. So they are taking action to protect their local car industry.
It's just that as long as the power dynamic is that Trump looks like a stubborn toddler while Merkel is the responsible parent, the US won't be able to do much about Tesla taking a hit. Plus, I'm not sure how much Trump likes Musk... so maybe he's willingly accepting it.
The US is stopping Germany from banning Teslas, it's a matter of power. The US wouldn't be acting that way if they weren't a military super power, and they certainly wouldn't accept it if anyone acted that way towards them unless that country has nukes.
Are you still trying to find logic in trumps actions?
The popular opinion on reddit seems to be that this is just trump being told that tiktok users where responsible for his failed tulsa rally, and personally, that explanation seems just as likely as any of the other explanations given here...
That's a partisan take and even Democrats have supported moves against China (though they have mixed support of this strong of an action). While China moves Uigher Muslims onto trains and forces sterilizations on them, we should probably be doing something more than just making them ad revenue.
Trump is smarter than that. He will also take credit for "securing America, because he stopped the Chinese computer virus that sleepy Joe and the socialist Dems wanted to let into America"
You're overthinking this. It's one thing for a popular app to come from another country. It's another thing when that country has complete control over business decisions, is your biggest global competitor, and is known to play dirty.
Well, it kind of did. The EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice just passed its final ruling last month stating that the "Safe Harbor" agreements called Privacy Shield etc. that US companies use to be able to operate in the EU in compliance with EU privacy laws are inadequate given the widespread mass surveillance used by the US. [0]
That's not banning but it requires US companies to actually invest and change their modes of operation if they want to continue to operate in the EU without being fined.
Broadly speaking, I think we're witnessing the birth of three distinct global powers.
One is centered on the US, and consists (broadly) of Canada, Mexico, the rest of Latin America, the Commonwealth nations, Japan, Korea, Israel, and Taiwan.
An American civil war would destabilize this to a large degree, so we'll have to see if that plays out.
Edit, since people seem confused: This would be an absolute nightmare scenario, but it is in the realm of possibility, and would massively change international political structures.
Another is centered on Germany and France, and controls Europe, parts of Africa, and the Middle East.
Finally, we've got China, which will likely control a big chunk of Africa and Southeast Asia.
Russia is a tough one, but I see them siding with China or Europe.
Contested territory will include Taiwan, bits of the Middle East, and an escalation of the border disputes with Japan. Likely bits of eastern Europe, plus conflicts on the China/India border...
What a time to be alive.
Edit: Just because somebody says that something is a possibility doesn't mean that they want that thing to happen.
Me coming down with a case of COVID is a possibility. In fact, I'm operating under the assumption that I will be infected at some point, regardless of precautions (masks, hand-washing, stepping back from my competitive doorknob-licking career, etc.)
That doesn't mean I want a case of Horribly Shitty Virus With Not-Yet Well-Documented Complications.
I'm just prepared for the worst (as best as I can), and hoping for the best (because why not?)
American Civil War 2 is an impossible fantasy. You need regional divisions in the military, which we don't have. These new alliances don't make sense either.
A German, French and Russian alliance is probably the winning move and was thwarted more than once by Anglo-Saxon intervention. Right now the US actively tries to sabotage the Nordstream 2 completion (https://www.dw.com/de/ist-nord-stream-2-noch-zu-retten/a-538...), which would make Germany energy independent from US controlled Gas.
>Another is centered on Germany and France, and controls Europe, parts of Africa, and the Middle East.
These countries are trying to get Facebook to pay a regional tax, not rebelling against sixty years of NATO. I don't understand how you can consider them a distinct global power from the US, and I'm unclear what these non-contested regions you think are part of their base.
I feel this is a really solid summary of the world order for the coming decades. We're still in a cold war mindset that suggests there has to be US vs. X with X now increasingly being China), but in a globalized world we'll see a more fragmented landscape. The US seems to move towards the final stages of its dominance which leaves space for others, but this space can be filled by a multitude of interlinked competitors.
What I don't get about the fervor the Trump administration is placing on banning Chinese apps over national security is that: i) on one hand there were Congressional hearings held 2 weeks ago where Trump said "Big Tech (FAANGs) were too big and needed to be broken up", and ii) on the other hand the US gov wants to now further cement American companies as de facto 'monopolies' for the world.
There's already various international issues with CCP-affiliated companies, but there must be some ulterior motive to go after TikTok and WeChat with such urgency right now, as opposed to any other time in the last 4-5 years.
* Personally, I think the result of what happens to TikTok, WeChat, or US app stores over Chinese apps doesn't matter in the end. What matters is that demands on Chinese apps to come to a deal with the US by September gives Trump more firepower to work with - if the deal happens, Trump paints himself as a US savior from Chinese meddling; if the deal doesn't happen, Trump blames China entirely as the bully and pushes America to retaliate.
a) Publishing is altogether a different situation.
b) Small nations can't feasibly have their own social app networks to any degree of scale.
c) The US is not China. For the most part FB is not a national security risk, whereas the Chinese apps could become that. China uses it's apps to observer and control every aspect of behaviour in China - the wherewithal, mans, intent etc..
d) This is tit for tat: China does not allow foreign social media in it's house.
I'm not so sure I agree with this, but it's not so outlandish.
The Trump administration is stirring up China hate as a means of getting reelected. Anything goes. The national security concerns may or may not be factual, but Trump doesn't care about that one bit.
It baffles me that people cannot see this very obvious fact. Just proof that his strategy is working.
I really think its as simple as Trump hates TikTok because 95% of TikTok users are not Trump supporters. Every thing else is just excuses/rationalization for the ban (although some of the reasons may actually be good, they aren't what Trump cares about)
You have posted the reason why this and the TikTok ban is most likely a bluff.
This (ordering companies such as Apple and Google to sever all business with TikTok and WeChat's owners and by extension removing them from all app stores) is a cannon that only can be fired once and will be so loud that it will fundamentally damage the centralised app store model.
This is similar to the muslim travel ban and will be overturned by some court and the Trump administration probably expect this. But does this anyway for the purpose of political communication.
> if the US creates a precedent for "national security" in this way
It can be a real threat to national security[1]:
> Thursday's order alleges that TikTok "automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users," such as location data and browsing and search histories, which "threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans' personal and proprietary information -- potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage."
It has nothing to do with other Western nations. It's about protecting your citizens from aggressive foreign states that operate based on completely different values.
I would consider going even further, and banning all Chinese researchers from the top US schools[2]:
> Seventy-one institutions, including many of the most prestigious medical schools in the United States, are now investigating 180 individual cases involving potential theft of intellectual property.
> Almost all of the incidents they uncovered and that are under investigation involve scientists of Chinese descent, including naturalized American citizens, allegedly stealing for China.
I'm using Tiktok on my iPhone and I can't even find an option to allow access to my location? I'm pretty sure any Apps can't access my browsers or search history either..?
As you stated, this is about national security, which should be of the utmost urgency and concern. So you think saving the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter is more important than saving the liberty of citizens and the lives of the overseas dissidents that are being endangered?
Regardless of how I feel about this particular company or transaction, to me this is a bad overreach of presidential power. I guess it's merely a reflection of the incompetence/inaction of Congress to study the matter and do something about it, as is their responsibility.
Why do I say so?
1. The justification for this is that it's a "national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain". Supply chain? Are you kidding me? The permissions given to the executive to declare emergencies for critical goods and services such as related to war time -- these extend to a voluntary communications app? Strains belief, and however you feel, this is not a good precedent to allow.
2. CCP is censoring / monitoring / scraping users' data, so this is a national emergency.... but not for 45 days and then also ok if we can buy the company on our terms.
This is yet another thing I guess time to throw up your hands and say, this is how we live now. One throw-it-against-the-wall proclamation after another.
Even if you're somewhat ok with it, are you really ok with this principle being applied, when someday it may not go how you want, for something you care about?
This plays right into China's narrative. Now the arrest of Meng Wanzhou (Huawei CTO) starts to look a bit less principled and a bit more like a piece of realpolitik.
I think it's definitely justified in the sense that it's understandable to strike back, but it's hard to take a moral high ground now.
None of these Chinese companies would have grown to what they are today without intense government-enforced protectionism at home, and until China agrees to compete on a fair playing field I'm perfectly fine with them all being banned outside of their firewall.
Would China ever agree to let Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Messenger etc. or any new startup operate freely and make money there? It should never have had this one-way economic benefit to begin with.
It's pretty much impossible for lower-income countries to develop economically without protecting their emerging businesses from being slaughtered by established foreign competition.
The priority of the Chinese government is the benefit of its citizens (leaving aside that the CCP doesn't consider ethnic minorities in China to be full citizens, as this is a separate issue) and its domestic economy, not the benefit of the American tech sector's senior executives and shareholders.
It's not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the Chinese turn their tech economy over to silicon valley by allowing unrestricted US entry. It's not in their economic interests, nor is it in their security interests, and no amount of US bullying will change this.
China is not Europe; it's not going to hand over the keys to its economic future to the United States just because the US asks for them.
I would have agreed with you 20 years ago, but China is now the second largest economy in the world, and on track to becoming the largest. Combine that with its gross domestic human rights violations, censorship, IP theft, and expansionist foreign policy (looking at the South China Sea, NE India, SE Asia, Africa etc.), and they aren't getting any sympathy from me.
> China is not Europe; it's not going to hand over the keys to its economic future to the United States just because the US asks for them.
Of course they aren't going to do that merely because we asked them nicely.
But, if we start forcing them to sell 100 billion dollar companies for 50% off, like what is happening with TikTok, well then they might start to listen.
Thats the whole point. I am completely unsurprised that China is acting this way. And, in response, America is going to retaliate and cause many billions and billions of dollars in damages to major China tech companies.
> It's not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the Chinese turn their tech economy over to silicon valley by allowing unrestricted US entry. It's not in their economic interests, nor is it in their security interests, and no amount of US bullying will change this.
Well if what you are saying is true, then it sounds like we should try and get a consolation prize, of taking some of their companies.
Sure, they might not give in to our demands. I don't really expect them to. But if thats the case, well, at least the USA can still benefit by taking some of their valuable tech companies, right?
Alibaba wasn't protected by the government at all. Ebay's then CEO bought a local e-biz site eachnet and relocated to Shanghai but still failed at competing with Alibaba.
Amazon bought some local e-biz site too and failed at competing with Alibaba too.
MSN was a huge player in China with far more users than QQ when it was taking off. ICQ was in China too. At the time IM wans't a big deal for big players. Tencent went IPO as very small startup, far less than Sina, Sohu etc., China's portals.
Chinese internet giants could win because they adapted fast to local market.
Try launching your app in China and see how much freedom you have. Regulating international trade (via agreements) is one of the foremost responsibilities of the federal government, and if this move forces them to open up their economy to fair competition it's a net benefit for everyone.
they don't, but WeChat is also huge security risk spying on people abroad with access to photos etc., tool used to tax evasion payments within the app etc.
for instance you go to chinese restaurant - you can choose to pay legally with card or cash money they have to tax or undocumented untaxed income through wechat
How so? Google operated in China for more than a decade and never got a major market share, and they already did fairly well compared to others. Facebook was largely unheard of after being available in China for many years before finally got banned in 2010. Amazon has been operating in China forever but is basically irrelevant to most Chinese. Most American companies did terrible job in localization and I see no chance of them winning the competition with their local competitors.
If they face strong local competition in any other country, they'd fail too
As a Chinese expat, Google China (back when it was operating) was multiple times slower than Baidu and would get blocked by the GFW arbitrarily frequently.
> None of these Chinese companies would have grown to what they are today without intense government-enforced protectionism at home
As others have mentioned, Alibaba, Taobao, Alipay grew the same time as mazon, Paypal and eBay was available in China. Also newegg had a much better headstart than jd.com but still failed.
At one time even Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger was a serious threat to Tencent QQ. Wordpress was much more popular than QZone.
's great you mention that. But the biggest reason that why FB, Google were excluded after around 2010 is never mentioned here and even difficult to debate because of political correctness: Is the Chinese government policy from economic reason or something else that has been interpreted as protectionism?
The other theory is uncensored social media is perceived as a big threat to national security threat (I'm not saying CPP security threat). The ground situation in China is beyond the understanding of most population even a large portion of intellectuals inside China. That view was enhanced and many Chinese intellectuals changed their mind after color revolution in Ukraine, middle east chaos, etc.
Don't get me wrong, most educated people inside China are against censorship like westerners and the sentiment was very strong and still somehow strong today. "Animal Farm" and "1984"[1] are sold openly in China. But normal peaceful life without fear of danger and insecurity from conflicts is evaluated more important than economic development let alone freedom of speech inside China but it is not necessary applied to other part of the world especially liberal Western world. With polarization of recent events in US and consequential censorship on YouTube and Twitter that beyond topic of BLM/Identity politics/etc which result in many normal Chinese YouTube and twitter accounts mistakenly banned (This is not well-known in English audience), even more Chinese changed their view against Chinese government censorship.
The real reason is not economical but from a perception of national security. The perception is debatable but it should be at least included as an option of viewpoint as opposed to totally excluded.
Was Vine available in China? It seems quite unlikely considering how little western social media is... so while I can't tell from a quick search I'm guessing that you really should remember that.
What are you talking about? All countries protect their industries. Are we forgetting about Bombardier? All military contractors are almost part of the US government at this point. And Apple, and now Microsoft apparently are leveraging Trump to gain every bit of advantage they can.
The US forces entire countries to give favorable deals to american companies and has for decades.
> Those companies are free to operate in China if the comply with Chinese law.
Which will never happen. The Chinese know that Western companies would never want to comply with the Chinese law because the law was purposefully designed in such a way as to benefit the totalitarian regime. So they were forced to quit China. This is nothing but an indirect ban. This is very common actually.
For example: India imposed a 200% tariff on all Pakistani goods instead of banning them after the Pulwama Terror Attack [1]. Why not outright ban them? Because of global trade rules that prohibit taking such measures. So imposing a 200% tariff would effectively mean a ban only. No one in their right mind would import goods/services at 200% import duty. This is what Chinese were doing to US companies the past decade. Which is why US companies left China in the first place. Because staying around and doing business in China became untenable.
Some people here are wondering about the implications of this. What this means IMO is that all Chinese investments in SV need to be liquidated at fire sale prices in the next 45 days. Regardless of how people here feel about China this is a huge escalation. The US is inflicting huge losses on Chinese companies for no clear violation of US laws on their part. The pandoras box is now open.
Do countries get to do this to each other whenever they feel like it now ? Can China force Tesla to sell its Chinese operations because Teslas data gathering poses a national security risk ? China has some pretty serious means available to it for escalation. China can ban Boeing from China forcing the US taxpayer to incur serious losses in keeping the company afloat.
The whole thing is pretty stupid overall. Most people don't realize that during the 2008 crisis it was Chinas 500 billion dollar stimulus that kick started demand and pulled the world out of a depression. China and the US are interdependent and hold up the global system upon which global growth depends. If China slows down as a result of all this that reduces global growth. Pushing China to the wall can make them take extreme steps like undercut the entire dollar based financial order leading to mass instability. The US might come out victorious anyway but its not worth the risks. Not to mention a war which if it breaks out could lead to WW3.
Previous attempts to contain China were much more tactful with things like the TPP and the Iran deal. Right now the world is hurtling towards the abyss and most people here don't even realise it.
A meta point I'd like to add is that currently 10 % of the earths population in the "Westosphere" controls 60 % of the worlds wealth. This is untenable in the long term and all this flailing about will not stop a reversion to a more balanced world. Its better that this happen gracefully than in a violent fashion.
I think we are already passed the point of any of this mattering. Increasingly the rhetoric seems to me to just be: what matters isn't who is in the right or what is just or fair. Increasingly the only thing that matters is which side you are on. Are you with us or are you against us? It's just dogma at this point.
In this kind of environment people that are rational either stick to their tribe or learn to keep their mouths shut because it's no longer safe to express a contrarian opinion (just like in China). You see already see this in comments sections throughout western publications and forums where questioning policy or taking the opposite side means you are a bot/stooge/unpatriotic/50 cent warrior, etc, etc, etc.
I think increasingly over the last year, dogmatic thinking and fantastical thinking related to several important topics are becoming mainstream, chief among them China. What's disheartening to me is that not only are neocons and Steve Bannon type ideologues pushing hard on this, it seems the majority of "liberals" do not really object to their views or actions on China. Ask yourself this: if you believe the Trump administration is corrupt, inept and acting out of self interest, how can you possibly think their strategy against China (the one foreign policy they pursued with most of their resources) is sound or good for American interest? So Trump botched covid responses that badly but he just got China right out of sheer luck?
I think the unfortunate explanation is that many Americans are now quite vindictive against the whole concept of China and would not mind any action that seem to damage it. Instead of looking at the issue objectively they simply want to believe whatever hurts must be wise. It's making me wonder if unthinkable disasters may actually happen out of sheer stupidity and irrationality.
> Increasingly the only thing that matters is which side you are on
You mean, what matters to the political and economic elites in the US, perhaps. In the rest of the world, most of us (IMNSHO) don't share this outlook, nor would we like to be on any one of the two sides.
China is likely playing the higher ground to see who wins in November. Biden will undo all of this and go back to ceding America’s prosperity to the dictatorship of China.
Can China force Tesla to sell its Chinese operations because Teslas data gathering poses a national security risk ?
China can force any company out of the country for any arbitrary reason whatsoever. As far as I know, they are still banning Houston Rockets games because Morey supported Hong Kong in a tweet.
More importantly, China has acted unilaterally in the past to inflict pain on western companies in preference of domestic firms. What’s new is the US doing it back.
Tesla was one of the first US companies to operate with the level of autonomy they have in China. Perhaps there is some retribution from the CCP, but such is the consequence of doing business with a totalitarian state.
> Do countries get to do this to each other whenever they feel like it now ? Can China force Tesla to sell its Chinese operations because Teslas data gathering poses a national security risk ?
Yes? Are you unaware that China has been doing exactly this for many, many years?
Just as two examples, AWS was forced by China to sell off its Chinese operations to a Chinese company because of arbitrary national security reasons. Blizzard Entertainment was forced by China to go through a Chinese intermediary who controls and publishes all Blizzard games in China.
The Chinese government sets their (extremely authoritarian) rules on censorship for companies to legally operate in China but the rules apply to everyone equally.
Chinese companies of course have to comply, but foreign companies have the choice to comply or not. Google chose to comply initially but decided to pull out later on. Microsoft/Apple choose to comply and are still operating in significant ways in China.
In contrast, US is proposing to ban TikTok, Huawei, DJI without clear rules: the reason to ban these companies is that they are Chinese companies. In other words, Chinese companies are "born a crime" to the US in the current climate, without the need to show what rules are violated or evidence of wrongdoing.
China also doesn't have the monopolistic power in tech that the US does: forbidding Google to operate in China it's not the same as forcing app stores to de-list certain apps globally.
It's even more absurd to force ByteDance to sell their US business to a US company. If the US feels justified that this could be done on "national security" ground, why shouldn't EU do the same to US tech companies?
I do hope that US citizens see that for much of the world, US is no longer the champion of free market, promoter of free-speech or guardian of world-order. All that matters is if these values benefit US economically or politically.
The US lost it when Japan was economically sanctioned for its competitive auto/electronic sector in 1980s. China is taking the same heat today and India would be the next target if India were to want to play its role on the international stage. The best outcome for the world would be to have multiple strong economies globally that keep each other in check; rather than one country having monopolistic power over all globally significant online forums.
But the big difference is that Amazon still controls aws in China, the product, the brand, the IP. And aws is developed employees in Seattle. It's just operated by the Chinese company. The Chinese company deal with servers, deployment, accesses to the servers and stuff. Amazon also get a significant share of revenue from that market. That is totally different from US gov forcing Bytedance to sell tiktok. Bytedance will no longer own tiktok. It's will have 0 shares. Zero control and no revenue sharing. Technically Microsoft can do whatever they want with tiktok in the future.
China says if you want to set up a factory in China you need to transfer IP. They aren't forcing western companies to invest. Most companies invested voluntarily. And this was seen as mostly OK when the rivalry wasn't as heated.
“Intellectual property”. What a joke. Throughout school how many times was I excited by a solution I devised until I realized my same exact approach was already discovered, published, and well known? These problems we are solving first dont entitle is to exclusive right over the solution.
We want to kick down the ladder after we climb it. That’s what this is about.
The difference between west and CCP is that you follow rule of law, everyone is free until you're proven guilty. If you just replicate what CCP is doing you're admitting that their ideology is superior.
> US tech firms still have a harder time operating in China.
It's entirely hard to believe this considering the obscene amounts of profits that US companies make by just "designing in california". Our whole era is enabled and defined by cheap chinese labor.
Google, fb, Twitter doesn't comply with internet security law in China, which requires servers in China and content regulation. The same law applies to everyone. If you follow it by the letter, you can operate. Case in point, Apple iCloud, Amazon, Microsoft azure etc. Yes the law itself is highly controversial. I for one would want this law changed. But at least the path for market access is documented. In tiktok case, it didn't break any existing us laws. It has an American office and hires Americans to do security and content monitoring. All data is stored on US soil. It promised to let outside review of data practices and how the algorithm works. There is no clearly spelled out procedure to follow to be allowed operating in the US. I am sure tiktok people are searching in the air for ideas to get themselves allowed to operate. I think thats the difference between fb in China and tiktok in the US.
It's become clear over the past year or so that US policy is essentially to ban Chinese tech companies from the US. ZTE, Huawei, ByteDance, WeChat, and surely more to follow as the election approaches and Trump tries to escalate tensions with China further.
On the other side, American tech companies do massive amounts of business in China.
The relationship is very lopsided, and at some point, China is sure to take action against American tech firms in China.
> A meta point I'd like to add is that currently 10 % of the earths population in the "Westosphere" controls 60 % of the worlds wealth. This is untenable in the long term and all this flailing about will not stop a reversion to a more balanced world. Its better that this happen gracefully than in a violent fashion.
That has been the case since at least the start of colonialism, so something like 200 years now. It depends on what you mean by long term, but that is already a long time. (And it has been sort of non-violent since the de-colonization wars in the 60s).
I'd prefer we reference CCP instead of China to differentiate the Chinese people from their tyrannical rulers.
The laws in America not outright making it illegal for tyrannical organizations who operate concentrate camps and partake in genocide (Uighurs) to have access to our democratic societies and benefit economically doesn't mean it's not something you should stand for - and where the laws likely should exist for that.
Likewise, the CCP would likely just takeover Tesla's operations - maybe paying them, maybe not. The difference in the US, currently at least, is TikTok has options: 1) they don't sell and the ban comes, they don't receive any $x billions compensation, or 2) they understand a ban is likely in the US (and growing other democratic nations) and they make the smarter economic decision of selling for $x billions - maybe at fire sale pricing, however there are many competitors who could still compete and be capable of taking over operations, so perhaps not as low as otherwise it could be.
We're not hurtling towards the abyss, that's fear mongering; you may be right that SV startups may have to divest their China based investors, however that may or may not hurt them - and that would be the result of countering external costs to supporting and allowing CCP that we haven't been adequately accounting for for decades.
This is a strategic political-economic pressure decision to put pressure onto the CCP - notice that we're paying attention and won't stand for the level of abuse and tyrannical behaviours of the that we're becoming more and more aware of.
Economic pressure and preventing access to democratic societies for economic gain IS the graceful way to go about this, rather than allow CCP to gain more reach, access for propaganda for intelligence gathering and manipulation, to then spoil politicians further and become more entrenched in our societies economically and via investments in the most popular apps, etc.
And finally, the CCP isn't suicidal - their $500 billion stimulus you reference was for their own survival as well; they also wouldn't want this system they've been creating getting its fingers strongly into the rest of the world economy (which they depend on to maintain) to collapse, the collapse of which would mean things would shift greatly and more likely away from their own benefit.
This is nothing new; it's geopolitics. The big boys have been doing this since the dawn of time.
Think of it like a playground: Everyone generally gets along, but the big kids can and sometimes do monopolize things they think are important at the time. The smaller kids make way for the bigger kids, and every now and then there's a fight between the bigger kids when they disagree strongly enough. They exchange words, jostle and block each other, or maybe it even comes to blows, and then things return to the status-quo for awhile.
That's how geopolitics work, except that it's usually a LOT more subtle or at least hidden from the public eye. Trump isn't a member of the political elite and is completely lacking in tact, so it's a lot harder to keep an appearance of calmness when he's in the room. Expect a much cleaner appearance of normalcy once he's out of office.
Anytime you do business with China your essentially doing business with the CCP.
We would all like China to be a positive part of the global community but the fact of the matter is you can't ignore their overall policy. A possible genocide against the ethnic Uighurs, aggressive expansion in the South China Sea, normalization of censorship and suppression, treatment of Hong Kong & Taiwan: all of which are a complete contrast of Western values.
Could China force Tesla to sell Chinese operations? Absolutely. I don't think any one would be surprised. Companies that enter the Chinese market (if they can in the first place) are subjected to getting a smaller piece of the pie from the start.
Facebook has relentlessly tried to tap the Chinese market but are blocked by the CCP. So why does TikTok get a free pass to the American market? Why does __any__ Chinese company get a pass?
I think we need to continuously evaluate our relationship with China.
WAL-MART, Starbuck, Ford, General Motors, GE, Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, UnitedHealth, HP, IBM, JPMorgan, Pepsi, CocaCola... all these companies are easy targets of China. But the Chinese government is not likely to make any move unless really cornered.
China has been doing this for a very long time to US companies. I'm not sure what pandora's box is being opened here. They just didn't selectively to two companies, they do it to all of them (other than Tesla who was the exception to the rule).
EU gave $200+ billion, plus each country did their own thing.
Ask FB or Google about their Chinese websites. How are they doing? This should have been done long time ago, tit for tat.
As for the rest, I doubt China can resort to stupid stuff. US and EU are not happy with them for a lot of things, including Covid, and China desperately needs them. China allowed manufacturing not to help us, but to gain taxes, employment and to steel IP.
This is sad, we in the US are losing the little high ground we had and no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people. I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only leads to future conflict.
> no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people.
It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes. You just end up being beaten up. Free Markets work well if pretty much everyone adopts the same rules of commerce, but China is way beyond that point.
Yes, by mirroring China’s authoritarianism and restricting the freedom of Americans. I’m living overseas and now my government is telling me I can’t use WeChat? Telling me who I can and cannot trade with, etc.
Restrictions on trade with China are attacks on our freedom.
And this is where credibility matters. Do other countries believe that this is true, or do they believe that Trump is doing this because TikTok is full of teens & comedians that have made him look foolish?
Not really. There are other developing economies with serious tech sectors like India which operate according to the rules based open market system we have in place.
If the US doesn't take action against Chinese protectionism, why should other countries abide by the rules and give US access to their markets? The US provides China it's market even though China closes it down for everyone.
I think US being soft on China sets a bad precedent.
> I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only leads to future conflict.
And unfortunately this is what the top comment preaches and I am very disappointed to see that the more-educated-than-the-average-person readers of HN fall into the trade war / retaliation fallacy.
Trade always benefits both parties. Otherwise they would not start trading in the first place.
The US has been a champion of global free trade for more than a century.
Of course, the US wants to be top dog in this free trade Utopia, and the means employed to get to those free-trade ends have frequently been terrible.
But just as frequently the means have been a reasonable (and moral / amoral) push to encourage globalization, which has demonstrably helped reduce poverty and other negative stats the world over.
The only thing that matters is long-term consequences. This could be war, but literally nobody wants that, least of all China. It also could be beating China down on its knees, and forcing it to free its people and its markets. That would be a remarkable outcome (not sure Trump can get there, though - I expected something in this direction in his dealings with North Korea, but he dropped the ball... I don't know, maybe he just got bored?)
it's not only about protectionism, WeChat is also used for tax evasion through wechat payments, let alone security risks with Chinese gov having access to all photos, documents and videos of residents of US who have this spyware on their phone
According to Sam Dean (LA Times): "Video game companies owned by Tencent will NOT be affected by this executive order! White House official confirmed to the LA Times that the EO only blocks transactions related to WeChat." [0]
So that clears up at least a little of the ambiguity.
Section 1. (a) The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent Holdings Ltd. (a.k.a. Téngxùn Kònggǔ Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī), Shenzhen, China, or any subsidiary of that entity, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under section 1(c) of this order.
Similarly, and I honestly feel a bit silly asking this, but does this ban US investors from purchasing Tencent stock? It doesn't seem so - are these literally just bans on app transactions? Or does this also mean that, for example, WeChat couldn't host infra on Azure in Africa?
Did you edit in the quote from the EO after? It specifically says "any transaction that is related to WeChat". The TikTok/ByteDance order doesn't include a "related to" qualifier like that, the same section in it just says:
any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, [...] with ByteDance Ltd.
It's still not clear what exactly that will mean, but the intention definitely seems to be to restrict it to WeChat and not hit everything from Tencent.
Tencent owns 40% of Epic Games, which owns Fortnite and the Epic Games store. This might be a symbolic move more then anything, because unless they intend to be rigorous about Tencent’s connections with all these companies (e.g Can’t buy anything on Epic’s store, or make micro transactions in games from companies owned by Tencent), they really are not stopping anything.
Your purchases through Epic or Riot (League of Legends, Valorant) are not seen as ‘direct’ transactions with Tencent.
Basically it’s exactly the kind of grandstanding Trump would partake in.
I think you're thinking of league of legends, unless they also have a controlling stake in Activision. I believe their stake a Activision is very much a minority position.
>That happened in 2012, the only legal challenge to CFIUS since it was established in 1975, when Chinese-based Sany Group’s affiliate Ralls Corp. bought wind farms in Oregon. Then- President Barack Obama ordered Ralls to not only divest the wind farms, but also forced it to remove items added to the facilities, including concrete foundation, and barred employee access to the premises. Sany complied.
The ban of an app like TikTok is absolutely unprecedented and is very atypical. This isn't par-for-the-course behavior by the US government, and the outcome of this ban will set a precedent for other apps the US bans on "national security" grounds.
What are the national security concerns for these apps that are not present in the multitude of other apps such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, Zoom, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Gmail, iMessage, Facetime, Vine, Snapchat, YouTube, etc?
What about the suspicions that Trump is upset that TikTok users helped sabotage one of his big rallies and this is retaliation and thus an overextension of his powers and an exercise in authoritarianism (something he's already done many times anyway)?
Because many US companies have been at the receiving end of unfair trade practices, copyright theft and blatant IP violations from the mainland. It's good that we are finally doing something about that.
I dunno, it worries me to see popular narratives sinking back into nationalistic perspectives.
This entrenches us in the “they did A, so we will respond with B” logic, and from there, it only takes a few “reasonable” exchanges between nations “just looking out for themselves” for us all to end up in a situation nobody wanted.
The outcome of this ban has important implications for potential bans in the future that affect apps at odds with administrations. End-to-end apps like Signal come to mind.
At least in my social circles, this has been one of the few things trump has done that both dems/conservatives agree with. Why would you be ok with CCP collecting info on US citizens and spreading misinformation to benefit a foreign regime?
It isn't the country directly collecting and analyzing data. It is a company. Chinese companies are required to share data, but so are U.S. companies.
If we focus on the companies, why is okay that U.S. companies are able to collect nearly arbitrary data on all U.S. citizens and participate in propaganda?
Readit News
This is an outrage that we should not allow. They steal our intellectual property, create state funded companies that are given monopoly access to their markets, and then unleash their stolen products on the world market. And if American or other western companies try to compete on the ground in China, they can’t.
Would WeChat or TikTok exist if western chat and social media apps were given total access to Chinese markets??? Extreme doubt.
The eventual end result of bending over to China is a world where all of the goods, services, and software are owned by China. This imbalance that China has created is unworkable and cannot be allowed to continue.
The US gains very substantial economic benefits from being an attractive place for international companies to do business. Foreign investors know that when they invest in America, they're getting a stable regulatory environment and a reasonably trustworthy civil legal system. If America decides to undermine that trust for short-term gain, there will be a substantial long-term cost.
You might believe that hostile trade policies prevent American companies from competing in the Chinese market, but that's starkly contradicted by the number of American companies for whom China is a key market. Apple earn $11bn a year in China. Wal-Mart have thousands of stores there. Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) have 40% of the Chinese fast food market and make more revenue there than anywhere else. Starbucks have 70% of the Chinese coffee market. The shelves of Chinese convenience stores are groaning with American-owned brands.
An all-out trade war with China might be appealing, but be under no illusions that it'll be all upside for America. If China want to put the hurt on America, they have more levers to pull and more staying power. It's definitely not a fight you want to lose, but it might not even be a fight worth winning.
China aren't thinking about next quarter or next year, they're thinking about the next generation. Where does the US see itself in 2050?
According to Lee Kai-Fu who launched Google in China: "Chinese laws are clear about what foreign companies can do to operate in China. In TikTok's case, though, the company was left no choice but to consider a forced sale."
China doesn't not allow western companies to operate. Google proactively made the choice to exit China. I'm not arguing that they should have elected to follow Chinese laws but the actions the Chinese government took with western companies was not to either tell them to stop existing in the Chinese market or abdicate their ownership to a domestic company.
Let's debate on non-imaginary premises.
This is simply false, yet it gets repeated on every discussion about China.
Western companies are everywhere in China, and they make massive revenues there. The presence of Chinese companies in the West is tiny by comparison (if you want proof, just look at FDI figures in each direction). Anyone who's spent time in both places can see this.
It's very difficult to discuss China-US trade issues when so many people begin from completely false assumptions about what the present situation is.
WeChat caters to the needs of Chinese users. As far as I know, WeChat invented integration of payments in messaging apps and Western apps like Messenger and iMessage copied that. I don't think the Western apps have QR payments, which is very important to Chinese. And I don't think a Western app would have come up with the group hongbao exchange feature.
TikTok doesn't have a surviving American equivalent so, yes. Definitely it would exist.
Deleted Comment
For the same reasons that China should allow American companies to operate in China.
In fact, if the west weren't so racist I suspect WeChat would dominate just like TikTok is dominating in the west.
It ceases to be reciprocal if you distinguish groups at an only slightly higher resolution: Chinese businesses like TikTok and WeChat and American businesses like Google and Facebook in addition to the Chinese and American governments. The Chinese government demanded that all businesses censor content, but Google and Facebook had most of their users outside China, so they could choose not to comply and still survive. Whereas TikTok and WeChat didn't have that luxury and censor their Chinese users (TikTok by offering Douyin as a separate product and making TikTok unavailable in China, WeChat by censoring messages in conversations with at least one Chinese participant). So far, both Chinese and American businesses were bullied by the Chinese government. Now the US government decided to "reciprocate" and ... decides to bully businesses as well, but only Chinese ones. Great justice.
If TikTok or WeChat have done anything wrong they deserve to be punished for, then sue them, or, if it's not illegal, make a new law that requires them to stop doing whatever it is. That law should then also apply to Google and Facebook, just in case they might be tempted to try the same thing.
But having the president order arbitrary punishment without proof of guilt (what happened to presumption of innocence?) looks like a dictatorship to me. Maybe I'm just biased by living in a parliamentary democracy where the voting system aims for proportional representation.
This really could be the end of the thread. For years China has banned systems and applications from other parts of the world. The fact it has taken this long to respond with action is stupefying. China would like the benefits of an open internet, but don't want to participate.
The decision is 100% appropriate, but wasn't handled in the best manner.
That's not a wholly accurate characterisation. The internet is regulated in China, in the same way that broadcast media is regulated in the US. You might vehemently disagree with the specifics of Chinese media regulation, but the regulatory principle is the same.
Foreign media companies that choose not to go through the Chinese regulatory system are blocked from operating in China. Google and Facebook have chosen not to operate in China rather than comply with their regulations, but many American media companies have, most prominently the Walt Disney Company.
There is a fundamental difference between having a legible and uniform regulatory system and arbitrarily banning companies based on the whims of the executive. If a Chinese company started beaming satellite TV channels into the US that flagrantly violated FCC rules, we would fully expect the FCC to take strenuous enforcement action. You or I might consider Chinese attitudes to freedom of speech abhorrent, but the regulation of Chinese media is a matter of Chinese sovereignty.
Chinese companies go to the effort of creating separate apps to comply with the laws and cultures of other countries. Why can't American companies do the same and obey Chinese law? Yet again, "American Exceptionalism" strikes again.
Also see LinkedIn and Bing, which disproves the idea that it's all some plot masterminded by Beijing to only allow Chinese companies to succeed.
Skype is available in a China.
For example when Google worked in China they were ripped apart for doing that, and so decided not to.
Most of these companies could work in China if they followed Chinese rules. They decided not to, so they don't.
"And if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you".
In any case, I think that the result of this is more that TikTok will sell at an even cheaper price, since it's coming from a position of weakness, not strength. And for WeChat -- who in the west actually uses it? The impact there I believe is a slight dip in Tencent Holdings' stock price, which will quickly bounce back.
Yes, which is bad for China, because it robs the Chinese people of choice. As Milton Friedman said when speaking on tariffs, "why do to yourself what you do to an enemy at war?"
China engages in censorship and limits the freedom of their people, so we're going to do the same to stick it to them? Excuse me if I don't see the logic
Dead Comment
Further Trump didn't just say they had to be sold, but instead they have to be sold specifically to a US buyer. That is...incredible. He is effectively engaged in technology piracy. Then again he just announced new tariffs on Canadian aluminum -- leaving Russian and Chinese aluminum untouched, and just after the ratification of the revised NAFTA -- under the guise of "national security", so it's into serious parody territory now.
The US is currently a corrupt banana republic.
Regardless, China has an enormous number of US targets they can and likely will retaliate against. And when they do, be sure to thank Trump.
And when the other guy takes out our spleen, we should take out his too?
And his muscles?
His brain?
And heart?
Until we are both nothing but dust.
Yes, let's reciprocate. Let us take until we are shit in the wind.
Of course this is tiny compared to the much more extreme human rights violations we see in China, the US, and elsewhere. But we should uphold rights and rule of law in all cases.
Legal reciprocity is China following US laws, which it does. Functional reciprocity is forcing Chinese companies to enter JV and tech transfer - while providing Chinese companies massive land and tax subsidies. I'm sure TikTok would love that compared to forced sales.
But just to be clear, while I shit on US a lot, there's rational grounds for banning Chinese media companies only because there's such structural asymmetry, i.e. even if twitter was legal, it can't be weaponized to undermine Chinese interests because it must comply to Chinese censorship laws. But this EO is just a dumb way to do it because it opens US interests to much more global blowback. US is pissed at these companies domestically, the international resentment is even greater.
This is, by all account, a shortsighted move
EU countries don't get to have "national security" that conflicts with the US to more than a trivial extent, like the Airbus/Boeing conflict. That's been a tradeoff that was accepted since the end of WW2. The US now complains about Europe not having strong militaries, having forgotten that for decades it was policy to discourage Europe from having strong militaries in case that started another war.
The US and China only get to play the national security card like this because of a high degree of conventional military and economic power.
With China, well, they are already blocking lots of American software companies so this would be more of a proportional response than anything else.
Germany is in bed with the US, especially the secret service.
Nothing. And it would not surprise me if Germany did it or at least put up a lot of barriers to help Volkswagen.
Politicians tend to be shortsighted (reelection, next term). That's partly why not enough has happened (or will happen, under this political paradigm) when it comes to the environmental issues our habitat is facing.
It's just that as long as the power dynamic is that Trump looks like a stubborn toddler while Merkel is the responsible parent, the US won't be able to do much about Tesla taking a hit. Plus, I'm not sure how much Trump likes Musk... so maybe he's willingly accepting it.
Also, Tesla doesn't have 80 million monthly active users in Germany who are young & impressionable.
The popular opinion on reddit seems to be that this is just trump being told that tiktok users where responsible for his failed tulsa rally, and personally, that explanation seems just as likely as any of the other explanations given here...
[0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/eu-court-again-rules-n...
Broadly speaking, I think we're witnessing the birth of three distinct global powers.
One is centered on the US, and consists (broadly) of Canada, Mexico, the rest of Latin America, the Commonwealth nations, Japan, Korea, Israel, and Taiwan.
An American civil war would destabilize this to a large degree, so we'll have to see if that plays out.
Edit, since people seem confused: This would be an absolute nightmare scenario, but it is in the realm of possibility, and would massively change international political structures.
Another is centered on Germany and France, and controls Europe, parts of Africa, and the Middle East.
Finally, we've got China, which will likely control a big chunk of Africa and Southeast Asia.
Russia is a tough one, but I see them siding with China or Europe.
Contested territory will include Taiwan, bits of the Middle East, and an escalation of the border disputes with Japan. Likely bits of eastern Europe, plus conflicts on the China/India border...
What a time to be alive.
Edit: Just because somebody says that something is a possibility doesn't mean that they want that thing to happen.
Me coming down with a case of COVID is a possibility. In fact, I'm operating under the assumption that I will be infected at some point, regardless of precautions (masks, hand-washing, stepping back from my competitive doorknob-licking career, etc.)
That doesn't mean I want a case of Horribly Shitty Virus With Not-Yet Well-Documented Complications.
I'm just prepared for the worst (as best as I can), and hoping for the best (because why not?)
These countries are trying to get Facebook to pay a regional tax, not rebelling against sixty years of NATO. I don't understand how you can consider them a distinct global power from the US, and I'm unclear what these non-contested regions you think are part of their base.
By far not a precedent. USA has been doing this even with its Western European "allies" for as long as NATO existed.
As for Chinese cos. Forced sales at firesale prices are not unprecedented too: Sany
As long as they contribute to the local economy, provide a service, and operate within the bounds of the law, that should suffice.
Banning them is just worse for everyone.
US have just joined the rank.
There's already various international issues with CCP-affiliated companies, but there must be some ulterior motive to go after TikTok and WeChat with such urgency right now, as opposed to any other time in the last 4-5 years.
* Personally, I think the result of what happens to TikTok, WeChat, or US app stores over Chinese apps doesn't matter in the end. What matters is that demands on Chinese apps to come to a deal with the US by September gives Trump more firepower to work with - if the deal happens, Trump paints himself as a US savior from Chinese meddling; if the deal doesn't happen, Trump blames China entirely as the bully and pushes America to retaliate.
b) Small nations can't feasibly have their own social app networks to any degree of scale.
c) The US is not China. For the most part FB is not a national security risk, whereas the Chinese apps could become that. China uses it's apps to observer and control every aspect of behaviour in China - the wherewithal, mans, intent etc..
d) This is tit for tat: China does not allow foreign social media in it's house.
I'm not so sure I agree with this, but it's not so outlandish.
There are much more obvious national security threats, but this is kindergarten tit for tat politics for ratings. So don't expect any action on those.
Or any understanding of second order consequences for the US. Or a coherent national IT security strategy, which is what the US and EU really need.
It baffles me that people cannot see this very obvious fact. Just proof that his strategy is working.
Dead Comment
This (ordering companies such as Apple and Google to sever all business with TikTok and WeChat's owners and by extension removing them from all app stores) is a cannon that only can be fired once and will be so loud that it will fundamentally damage the centralised app store model.
This is similar to the muslim travel ban and will be overturned by some court and the Trump administration probably expect this. But does this anyway for the purpose of political communication.
It can be a real threat to national security[1]:
> Thursday's order alleges that TikTok "automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users," such as location data and browsing and search histories, which "threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans' personal and proprietary information -- potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage."
It has nothing to do with other Western nations. It's about protecting your citizens from aggressive foreign states that operate based on completely different values.
I would consider going even further, and banning all Chinese researchers from the top US schools[2]:
> Seventy-one institutions, including many of the most prestigious medical schools in the United States, are now investigating 180 individual cases involving potential theft of intellectual property.
> Almost all of the incidents they uncovered and that are under investigation involve scientists of Chinese descent, including naturalized American citizens, allegedly stealing for China.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-orde...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/health/china-nih-scientis...
not a lot of people are indoctrinated into the world of national security, and because of that they just balk at it
there's a lot going on in the world, and it's not a big happy place where everyone are friends, to put it bluntly
china has other motives, I think a quick google should at least clue one in their corporate espionage activities
Why do I say so?
1. The justification for this is that it's a "national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain". Supply chain? Are you kidding me? The permissions given to the executive to declare emergencies for critical goods and services such as related to war time -- these extend to a voluntary communications app? Strains belief, and however you feel, this is not a good precedent to allow.
2. CCP is censoring / monitoring / scraping users' data, so this is a national emergency.... but not for 45 days and then also ok if we can buy the company on our terms.
This is yet another thing I guess time to throw up your hands and say, this is how we live now. One throw-it-against-the-wall proclamation after another.
Even if you're somewhat ok with it, are you really ok with this principle being applied, when someday it may not go how you want, for something you care about?
I think it's definitely justified in the sense that it's understandable to strike back, but it's hard to take a moral high ground now.
Dead Comment
Would China ever agree to let Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Messenger etc. or any new startup operate freely and make money there? It should never have had this one-way economic benefit to begin with.
The priority of the Chinese government is the benefit of its citizens (leaving aside that the CCP doesn't consider ethnic minorities in China to be full citizens, as this is a separate issue) and its domestic economy, not the benefit of the American tech sector's senior executives and shareholders.
It's not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the Chinese turn their tech economy over to silicon valley by allowing unrestricted US entry. It's not in their economic interests, nor is it in their security interests, and no amount of US bullying will change this.
China is not Europe; it's not going to hand over the keys to its economic future to the United States just because the US asks for them.
Isn’t that what Trump thinks he is doing?
I mean, there is plenty of countries around Europe that are sort of doing worse than China, but are still strongarmed by these Chinese.
Maybe the EU should also get in on this, not allowing any Chinese firms onside our borders. After all, our companies are even more fragile.
A call for global protectionism, in other words.
Is that actually true? China seems to be even using affirmative action to benefit its minorities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China
Of course they aren't going to do that merely because we asked them nicely.
But, if we start forcing them to sell 100 billion dollar companies for 50% off, like what is happening with TikTok, well then they might start to listen.
Thats the whole point. I am completely unsurprised that China is acting this way. And, in response, America is going to retaliate and cause many billions and billions of dollars in damages to major China tech companies.
> It's not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the Chinese turn their tech economy over to silicon valley by allowing unrestricted US entry. It's not in their economic interests, nor is it in their security interests, and no amount of US bullying will change this.
Well if what you are saying is true, then it sounds like we should try and get a consolation prize, of taking some of their companies.
Sure, they might not give in to our demands. I don't really expect them to. But if thats the case, well, at least the USA can still benefit by taking some of their valuable tech companies, right?
Alibaba wasn't protected by the government at all. Ebay's then CEO bought a local e-biz site eachnet and relocated to Shanghai but still failed at competing with Alibaba.
Amazon bought some local e-biz site too and failed at competing with Alibaba too.
MSN was a huge player in China with far more users than QQ when it was taking off. ICQ was in China too. At the time IM wans't a big deal for big players. Tencent went IPO as very small startup, far less than Sina, Sohu etc., China's portals.
Chinese internet giants could win because they adapted fast to local market.
But the US banning trade with China is nothing but an attack on Americans and my freedom to trade and communicate.
for instance you go to chinese restaurant - you can choose to pay legally with card or cash money they have to tax or undocumented untaxed income through wechat
If they face strong local competition in any other country, they'd fail too
As others have mentioned, Alibaba, Taobao, Alipay grew the same time as mazon, Paypal and eBay was available in China. Also newegg had a much better headstart than jd.com but still failed.
At one time even Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger was a serious threat to Tencent QQ. Wordpress was much more popular than QZone.
The other theory is uncensored social media is perceived as a big threat to national security threat (I'm not saying CPP security threat). The ground situation in China is beyond the understanding of most population even a large portion of intellectuals inside China. That view was enhanced and many Chinese intellectuals changed their mind after color revolution in Ukraine, middle east chaos, etc.
Don't get me wrong, most educated people inside China are against censorship like westerners and the sentiment was very strong and still somehow strong today. "Animal Farm" and "1984"[1] are sold openly in China. But normal peaceful life without fear of danger and insecurity from conflicts is evaluated more important than economic development let alone freedom of speech inside China but it is not necessary applied to other part of the world especially liberal Western world. With polarization of recent events in US and consequential censorship on YouTube and Twitter that beyond topic of BLM/Identity politics/etc which result in many normal Chinese YouTube and twitter accounts mistakenly banned (This is not well-known in English audience), even more Chinese changed their view against Chinese government censorship.
The real reason is not economical but from a perception of national security. The perception is debatable but it should be at least included as an option of viewpoint as opposed to totally excluded.
[1]http://product.dangdang.com/25215594.html
Deleted Comment
Ah yes, I remember when the Chinese government killed off Vine to give TikTok a head start.
The US hasn’t issued any legal barriers for TikTok to jump over, they just straight out banned it.
Which will never happen. The Chinese know that Western companies would never want to comply with the Chinese law because the law was purposefully designed in such a way as to benefit the totalitarian regime. So they were forced to quit China. This is nothing but an indirect ban. This is very common actually.
For example: India imposed a 200% tariff on all Pakistani goods instead of banning them after the Pulwama Terror Attack [1]. Why not outright ban them? Because of global trade rules that prohibit taking such measures. So imposing a 200% tariff would effectively mean a ban only. No one in their right mind would import goods/services at 200% import duty. This is what Chinese were doing to US companies the past decade. Which is why US companies left China in the first place. Because staying around and doing business in China became untenable.
[1]: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/ind...
Do countries get to do this to each other whenever they feel like it now ? Can China force Tesla to sell its Chinese operations because Teslas data gathering poses a national security risk ? China has some pretty serious means available to it for escalation. China can ban Boeing from China forcing the US taxpayer to incur serious losses in keeping the company afloat.
The whole thing is pretty stupid overall. Most people don't realize that during the 2008 crisis it was Chinas 500 billion dollar stimulus that kick started demand and pulled the world out of a depression. China and the US are interdependent and hold up the global system upon which global growth depends. If China slows down as a result of all this that reduces global growth. Pushing China to the wall can make them take extreme steps like undercut the entire dollar based financial order leading to mass instability. The US might come out victorious anyway but its not worth the risks. Not to mention a war which if it breaks out could lead to WW3.
Previous attempts to contain China were much more tactful with things like the TPP and the Iran deal. Right now the world is hurtling towards the abyss and most people here don't even realise it.
A meta point I'd like to add is that currently 10 % of the earths population in the "Westosphere" controls 60 % of the worlds wealth. This is untenable in the long term and all this flailing about will not stop a reversion to a more balanced world. Its better that this happen gracefully than in a violent fashion.
In this kind of environment people that are rational either stick to their tribe or learn to keep their mouths shut because it's no longer safe to express a contrarian opinion (just like in China). You see already see this in comments sections throughout western publications and forums where questioning policy or taking the opposite side means you are a bot/stooge/unpatriotic/50 cent warrior, etc, etc, etc.
I think the unfortunate explanation is that many Americans are now quite vindictive against the whole concept of China and would not mind any action that seem to damage it. Instead of looking at the issue objectively they simply want to believe whatever hurts must be wise. It's making me wonder if unthinkable disasters may actually happen out of sheer stupidity and irrationality.
You mean, what matters to the political and economic elites in the US, perhaps. In the rest of the world, most of us (IMNSHO) don't share this outlook, nor would we like to be on any one of the two sides.
China can force any company out of the country for any arbitrary reason whatsoever. As far as I know, they are still banning Houston Rockets games because Morey supported Hong Kong in a tweet.
Tesla was one of the first US companies to operate with the level of autonomy they have in China. Perhaps there is some retribution from the CCP, but such is the consequence of doing business with a totalitarian state.
As far as I know, you trust media reports more than a random search on Chinese video sites.
https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4534875236007949
It's the Rockets vs Trail Blazers math on 4th Aug.
Yes? Are you unaware that China has been doing exactly this for many, many years?
Just as two examples, AWS was forced by China to sell off its Chinese operations to a Chinese company because of arbitrary national security reasons. Blizzard Entertainment was forced by China to go through a Chinese intermediary who controls and publishes all Blizzard games in China.
The Chinese government sets their (extremely authoritarian) rules on censorship for companies to legally operate in China but the rules apply to everyone equally.
Chinese companies of course have to comply, but foreign companies have the choice to comply or not. Google chose to comply initially but decided to pull out later on. Microsoft/Apple choose to comply and are still operating in significant ways in China.
In contrast, US is proposing to ban TikTok, Huawei, DJI without clear rules: the reason to ban these companies is that they are Chinese companies. In other words, Chinese companies are "born a crime" to the US in the current climate, without the need to show what rules are violated or evidence of wrongdoing.
China also doesn't have the monopolistic power in tech that the US does: forbidding Google to operate in China it's not the same as forcing app stores to de-list certain apps globally.
It's even more absurd to force ByteDance to sell their US business to a US company. If the US feels justified that this could be done on "national security" ground, why shouldn't EU do the same to US tech companies?
I do hope that US citizens see that for much of the world, US is no longer the champion of free market, promoter of free-speech or guardian of world-order. All that matters is if these values benefit US economically or politically.
The US lost it when Japan was economically sanctioned for its competitive auto/electronic sector in 1980s. China is taking the same heat today and India would be the next target if India were to want to play its role on the international stage. The best outcome for the world would be to have multiple strong economies globally that keep each other in check; rather than one country having monopolistic power over all globally significant online forums.
Telecom thus involves anything with a computer, and any "com," being applied with arbitrary eagerness.
Deleted Comment
Do countries take to banning Boeing, if they find problems with PepsiCo?.
We want to kick down the ladder after we climb it. That’s what this is about.
no
"Good artists copy; great artists steal" - Steve Jobs
No, countries get to do this to each other whenever they feel like since the dawn of mankind. "Now" isn't any different.
> A meta point I'd like to add is that currently 10 % of the earths population in the "Westosphere" controls 60 % of the worlds wealth.
True wealth is really hard to measure. Stocks and dollars and euros are not wealth. They are mediums of exchange no different then dogecoin.
When I am hungry, I can’t eat them directly, I can only trade them for food. And the amount of food I will get varies based on supply and demand.
It's entirely hard to believe this considering the obscene amounts of profits that US companies make by just "designing in california". Our whole era is enabled and defined by cheap chinese labor.
On the other side, American tech companies do massive amounts of business in China.
The relationship is very lopsided, and at some point, China is sure to take action against American tech firms in China.
That has been the case since at least the start of colonialism, so something like 200 years now. It depends on what you mean by long term, but that is already a long time. (And it has been sort of non-violent since the de-colonization wars in the 60s).
That would be a first now would it.
Deleted Comment
Not if they don't want an airline industry. China does not have the capacity to build a jet engine yet alone a commercial plane in service.
b.) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Aircraft_Corporatio...
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
The laws in America not outright making it illegal for tyrannical organizations who operate concentrate camps and partake in genocide (Uighurs) to have access to our democratic societies and benefit economically doesn't mean it's not something you should stand for - and where the laws likely should exist for that.
Likewise, the CCP would likely just takeover Tesla's operations - maybe paying them, maybe not. The difference in the US, currently at least, is TikTok has options: 1) they don't sell and the ban comes, they don't receive any $x billions compensation, or 2) they understand a ban is likely in the US (and growing other democratic nations) and they make the smarter economic decision of selling for $x billions - maybe at fire sale pricing, however there are many competitors who could still compete and be capable of taking over operations, so perhaps not as low as otherwise it could be.
We're not hurtling towards the abyss, that's fear mongering; you may be right that SV startups may have to divest their China based investors, however that may or may not hurt them - and that would be the result of countering external costs to supporting and allowing CCP that we haven't been adequately accounting for for decades.
This is a strategic political-economic pressure decision to put pressure onto the CCP - notice that we're paying attention and won't stand for the level of abuse and tyrannical behaviours of the that we're becoming more and more aware of.
Economic pressure and preventing access to democratic societies for economic gain IS the graceful way to go about this, rather than allow CCP to gain more reach, access for propaganda for intelligence gathering and manipulation, to then spoil politicians further and become more entrenched in our societies economically and via investments in the most popular apps, etc.
And finally, the CCP isn't suicidal - their $500 billion stimulus you reference was for their own survival as well; they also wouldn't want this system they've been creating getting its fingers strongly into the rest of the world economy (which they depend on to maintain) to collapse, the collapse of which would mean things would shift greatly and more likely away from their own benefit.
Think of it like a playground: Everyone generally gets along, but the big kids can and sometimes do monopolize things they think are important at the time. The smaller kids make way for the bigger kids, and every now and then there's a fight between the bigger kids when they disagree strongly enough. They exchange words, jostle and block each other, or maybe it even comes to blows, and then things return to the status-quo for awhile.
That's how geopolitics work, except that it's usually a LOT more subtle or at least hidden from the public eye. Trump isn't a member of the political elite and is completely lacking in tact, so it's a lot harder to keep an appearance of calmness when he's in the room. Expect a much cleaner appearance of normalcy once he's out of office.
We would all like China to be a positive part of the global community but the fact of the matter is you can't ignore their overall policy. A possible genocide against the ethnic Uighurs, aggressive expansion in the South China Sea, normalization of censorship and suppression, treatment of Hong Kong & Taiwan: all of which are a complete contrast of Western values.
Could China force Tesla to sell Chinese operations? Absolutely. I don't think any one would be surprised. Companies that enter the Chinese market (if they can in the first place) are subjected to getting a smaller piece of the pie from the start.
Facebook has relentlessly tried to tap the Chinese market but are blocked by the CCP. So why does TikTok get a free pass to the American market? Why does __any__ Chinese company get a pass?
I think we need to continuously evaluate our relationship with China.
unlikely. That much doesn't move the needle, world economy right now is $140+ TRILLION. USA gave out over $700 Billion for that matter in 2008-2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest...
EU gave $200+ billion, plus each country did their own thing.
Ask FB or Google about their Chinese websites. How are they doing? This should have been done long time ago, tit for tat.
As for the rest, I doubt China can resort to stupid stuff. US and EU are not happy with them for a lot of things, including Covid, and China desperately needs them. China allowed manufacturing not to help us, but to gain taxes, employment and to steel IP.
It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes. You just end up being beaten up. Free Markets work well if pretty much everyone adopts the same rules of commerce, but China is way beyond that point.
Excluding self defense, I wonder if this can be applied to nations too.
You are saying Europe is behaving like China?
Restrictions on trade with China are attacks on our freedom.
Dead Comment
If the US doesn't take action against Chinese protectionism, why should other countries abide by the rules and give US access to their markets? The US provides China it's market even though China closes it down for everyone.
I think US being soft on China sets a bad precedent.
And unfortunately this is what the top comment preaches and I am very disappointed to see that the more-educated-than-the-average-person readers of HN fall into the trade war / retaliation fallacy.
Trade always benefits both parties. Otherwise they would not start trading in the first place.
Of course, the US wants to be top dog in this free trade Utopia, and the means employed to get to those free-trade ends have frequently been terrible.
But just as frequently the means have been a reasonable (and moral / amoral) push to encourage globalization, which has demonstrably helped reduce poverty and other negative stats the world over.
So that clears up at least a little of the ambiguity.
[0]: https://twitter.com/SamAugustDean/status/1291576813685108736
https://twitter.com/SamAugustDean/status/1291576813685108736
Deleted Comment
Tencent owns 40% of Epic Games, which owns Fortnite and the Epic Games store. This might be a symbolic move more then anything, because unless they intend to be rigorous about Tencent’s connections with all these companies (e.g Can’t buy anything on Epic’s store, or make micro transactions in games from companies owned by Tencent), they really are not stopping anything.
Your purchases through Epic or Riot (League of Legends, Valorant) are not seen as ‘direct’ transactions with Tencent.
Basically it’s exactly the kind of grandstanding Trump would partake in.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-trump-breaking...
What about the suspicions that Trump is upset that TikTok users helped sabotage one of his big rallies and this is retaliation and thus an overextension of his powers and an exercise in authoritarianism (something he's already done many times anyway)?
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
If we focus on the companies, why is okay that U.S. companies are able to collect nearly arbitrary data on all U.S. citizens and participate in propaganda?
Deleted Comment