15 ms·

Forcing a foreign business to "sell or close" is an insult to the rule of law.

by kanox 6y ago

redis_mlc 6y ago
There's no law in China.
rorykoehler 6y ago
Not if China don't reciprocate the openness of the market (which they don't). Only fools will let them steamroll like that. I'm no Trump fan but this should have happened decades ago.
- antonzabirko 6y ago
  Amen
- kanox 6y ago
  Rule of law is not conditional on reciprocity.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    And vice versa. Rule of law is whatever the law makers decide the law will be. If they decide it is conditional on reciprocity then it is.
  - gwright 6y ago
    Rule of law is very important, but part of the problem is the "law" is pretty expansive with the powers it gives to the President. So I don't necessarily think there is a "rule of law" problem in this instance, but instead a problem with the extent of powers given to the federal government in general and to the President specifically. Disclaimer: I haven't read a good legal analysis of Trump's actions as of yet. This is a long standing problem with the size, scope, and complexity of our federal government. One of the things I do "enjoy" about Trump is how his actions gets everyone to argue for a less powerful federal government. It would be nice if these structural arguments weren't dependent on who was in the White House, but it is nice to hear them anyway.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Forcing a foreign business to "sell or close" is an insult to the rule of law These powers are precedented—-this is how antitrust law works. The U.S. has had similar procedures in CFIUS since 1975 [1][2], which is likely how U.S. would enforce this decision. Keep in mind, it’s not sell or close. It’s an order to unwind the Musical.ly acquisition [3] or face sanctions. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investm... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment [3] https://hans.vc/bytedance-musical-ly-merger/ https://hans.vc/bytedance-musical-ly-merger/
- scarface74 6y ago
  Since when could the President singlehandedly do it? Also, this has nothing to do with anti trust. How is TikTok a monopoly?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Since when could the President singlehandedly do it? Since 1988, when the Congress passed a law saying “all foreign investments that might affect national security may be reviewed and if deemed to pose a threat to security, the President of the United States may block the investment” [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment
    - scarface74 6y ago
      “President Reagan delegated the review process to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.“
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > President Reagan delegated the review process to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States Delegating a power doesn’t remove one of that power. And CFIUS pre-dates Exon-Flores, so the Congress giving the President, not CFIUS, these powers is relevant. We can have a discussion as to whether we like or dislike this action. (I am not a fan.) But suggesting it’s unprecedented or a breakdown of the rule of law is hyperbolic.
scarface74 6y ago
There hasn’t been a rule of law in the US for four years. Congress and the judiciary have both been rubber stamping everything the President does. Yet and still this is the same government that for some strange reason many on HN trust to “regulate tech”.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Congress and the judiciary have both been rubber stamping everything the President does This is patently false—the U.S. has been losing court cases left and right [1]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/why-trump-keeps-losing-at-the-supreme-court/613315/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/why-trump-...
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Yet and still. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-didnt-like-rulings-on-daca-so-hes-defying-them/2020/07/31/36458e06-d1e1-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-didnt-like-rul...
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      One case, and the defiance is four days old. The injured will be able to get equity and injunctions in court. Not a valid argument for equivalence with Xi’s regime.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        From who? Judges in the same party with lifetime appointments? Is Congress going to condemn it?
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > Judges in the same party with lifetime appointments? Gorsuch recently ruled against Trump on gay rights [1]. As have several Bush appointees on other matters. Party isn’t a perfect prism for predicting court opinions. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supre...
newbie578 6y ago
And working with a country which enforces that practice for over 40 years is not? (China if you didn't notice). This is the only way to truly fight back to their own anti-competitive practices. Either that, or outright banning them from doing business until they change their own laws, and honestly I much prefer the second option, even though I can tolerate the current solution proposed by Trump.
- croes 6y ago
  So you fight back by becoming more like China?
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    That'll show 'em!
  - hnxs 6y ago
    I know where you’re going with this, but let’s all reflect on how China is currently winning.
dx034 6y ago
Not if this is the only way to protect its citizens. Not saying it's the case here but forcing a company to sale it's business to a local entity in order to proceed offering it on a local market isn't unheard of and can make sense.
- amf12 6y ago
  > Not if this is the only way to protect its citizens. There are other ways, like enacting laws mandating data storage be in the US.
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    If China-based engineers have access to TikTok's US-based servers, they can still hand over data to the CCP (or be forced to do so). The only way out is to move engineering, SRE, and testing out of China and hard-fork the codebase.
    - amf12 6y ago
      > If China-based engineers have access to TikTok's US-based servers, they can still hand over data to the CCP (or be forced to do so). 1. That is illegal. 2. Theoretically this also currently applies to Google, Microsoft, Google (any company which has devs in China) and is a solved problem. Almost all people don't have physical access to data, and those who do need to go through access reviews to do anything.
      - eddieplan9 6y ago
        Quite the contrary: it’s illegal to not share data with government if requested: > Two pieces of legislation are of particular concern to governments — the 2017 National Intelligence Law and the 2014 Counter-Espionage Law. Article 7 of the first law states that "any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law," adding that the the state "protects" any individual and organization that aids it. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-data-to-china-government-if-asked-experts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-da...
ETHisso2017 6y ago
The US government just took a large step towards becoming like China's today, at least in terms of how it oversees its technology industry.
threeseed 6y ago
What Trump is doing is completely within the law otherwise TikTok and its investors would simply file a lawsuit. And every day governments around the world block mergers and acquisitions on competition grounds and block companies from being involved in sensitive projects e.g. Huawei.
- croes 6y ago
  Yeah, like they would a expect fair trial.
  - nathanaldensr 6y ago
    It's not a criminal proceeding. These are arbitrary powers granted to the President by Congress. If you want to change that, lobby your Congressperson to repeal the 1988 law mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
IMTDb 6y ago
This is not a "sell or close" it's a "cut ties with a foreign government or stop operating here". TikTok can continue operating, just not in the US.
- rfoo 6y ago
  > cut ties with a foreign government or stop operating here How is it possible for someone to prove that they have no foreign government ties? Are there any evidence backing the "foreign government tie"?
  - IMTDb 6y ago
    Proving it might be hard. But a first step would be to get rid of its internal committee of the Chinese Communist Party. And to stop making joint venture with government agencies. To put it in other words, if there was a dedicated spot for the US secretary of defence on the board of Google, how fast do you think other countries would take some actions against Google ?
    - rfoo 6y ago
      > stop making joint venture with government agencies. Good point, I don't know they have JVs with government agencies before, had to do some research on this. > get rid of its internal committee of the Chinese Communist Party This is hard, if not impossible, if you meant "党委" ("party committee") or "党支部" ("party branch"), because CCP demands any organization with more than 3 party members SHOULD have one. ("should" should be interpreted roughly as the same word in RFC Requirement Levels) And just like they usually have no problem if people chose to deny joining the party but may hassle you forever if you quit, if you try to shutdown an existing "committee" it would be seen as hostile. That being said, most of the mid-to-large-sized startups are actively ignoring these requirements until being forced, because apparently even if you are required to do so, you have to go through a hairy application process. And the "committee" in most corps (including mega corps) are essentially an empty shell, a symbolic thing to make CCP happy, so corps usually have no motivation to change the status quo. Yet CCP do extremely care about these symbolic stuff, it is even forcing foreign companies to do this, IIRC Disney agreed to do so.
tmaly 6y ago
How does this compare to forced technology transfers of a companies IP?
sdinsn 6y ago
They aren't forcing it to sell or close. If the US bans TikTok, TikTok will still exist in other countries.

Forcing a foreign business to "sell or close" is an insult to the rule of law.

by kanox 6y ago

Forcing a foreign business to "sell or close" is an insult to the rule of law.

redis_mlc 6y ago

There's no law in China.

rorykoehler 6y ago

Not if China don't reciprocate the openness of the market (which they don't). Only fools will let them steamroll like that. I'm no Trump fan but this should have happened decades ago.

antonzabirko 6y ago
Amen
kanox 6y ago
Rule of law is not conditional on reciprocity.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  And vice versa. Rule of law is whatever the law makers decide the law will be. If they decide it is conditional on reciprocity then it is.
- gwright 6y ago
  Rule of law is very important, but part of the problem is the "law" is pretty expansive with the powers it gives to the President. So I don't necessarily think there is a "rule of law" problem in this instance, but instead a problem with the extent of powers given to the federal government in general and to the President specifically. Disclaimer: I haven't read a good legal analysis of Trump's actions as of yet. This is a long standing problem with the size, scope, and complexity of our federal government. One of the things I do "enjoy" about Trump is how his actions gets everyone to argue for a less powerful federal government. It would be nice if these structural arguments weren't dependent on who was in the White House, but it is nice to hear them anyway.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> Forcing a foreign business to "sell or close" is an insult to the rule of law These powers are precedented—-this is how antitrust law works. The U.S. has had similar procedures in CFIUS since 1975 [1][2], which is likely how U.S. would enforce this decision. Keep in mind, it’s not sell or close. It’s an order to unwind the Musical.ly acquisition [3] or face sanctions. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investm... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment [3] https://hans.vc/bytedance-musical-ly-merger/ https://hans.vc/bytedance-musical-ly-merger/

scarface74 6y ago
Since when could the President singlehandedly do it? Also, this has nothing to do with anti trust. How is TikTok a monopoly?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Since when could the President singlehandedly do it? Since 1988, when the Congress passed a law saying “all foreign investments that might affect national security may be reviewed and if deemed to pose a threat to security, the President of the United States may block the investment” [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment
  - scarface74 6y ago
    “President Reagan delegated the review process to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.“
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > President Reagan delegated the review process to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States Delegating a power doesn’t remove one of that power. And CFIUS pre-dates Exon-Flores, so the Congress giving the President, not CFIUS, these powers is relevant. We can have a discussion as to whether we like or dislike this action. (I am not a fan.) But suggesting it’s unprecedented or a breakdown of the rule of law is hyperbolic.

scarface74 6y ago

There hasn’t been a rule of law in the US for four years. Congress and the judiciary have both been rubber stamping everything the President does. Yet and still this is the same government that for some strange reason many on HN trust to “regulate tech”.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Congress and the judiciary have both been rubber stamping everything the President does This is patently false—the U.S. has been losing court cases left and right [1]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/why-trump-keeps-losing-at-the-supreme-court/613315/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/why-trump-...
- scarface74 6y ago
  Yet and still. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-didnt-like-rulings-on-daca-so-hes-defying-them/2020/07/31/36458e06-d1e1-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-didnt-like-rul...
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    One case, and the defiance is four days old. The injured will be able to get equity and injunctions in court. Not a valid argument for equivalence with Xi’s regime.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      From who? Judges in the same party with lifetime appointments? Is Congress going to condemn it?
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > Judges in the same party with lifetime appointments? Gorsuch recently ruled against Trump on gay rights [1]. As have several Bush appointees on other matters. Party isn’t a perfect prism for predicting court opinions. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supre...

newbie578 6y ago

And working with a country which enforces that practice for over 40 years is not? (China if you didn't notice). This is the only way to truly fight back to their own anti-competitive practices. Either that, or outright banning them from doing business until they change their own laws, and honestly I much prefer the second option, even though I can tolerate the current solution proposed by Trump.

croes 6y ago
So you fight back by becoming more like China?
- jessaustin 6y ago
  That'll show 'em!
- hnxs 6y ago
  I know where you’re going with this, but let’s all reflect on how China is currently winning.

dx034 6y ago

Not if this is the only way to protect its citizens. Not saying it's the case here but forcing a company to sale it's business to a local entity in order to proceed offering it on a local market isn't unheard of and can make sense.

amf12 6y ago
> Not if this is the only way to protect its citizens. There are other ways, like enacting laws mandating data storage be in the US.
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  If China-based engineers have access to TikTok's US-based servers, they can still hand over data to the CCP (or be forced to do so). The only way out is to move engineering, SRE, and testing out of China and hard-fork the codebase.
  - amf12 6y ago
    > If China-based engineers have access to TikTok's US-based servers, they can still hand over data to the CCP (or be forced to do so). 1. That is illegal. 2. Theoretically this also currently applies to Google, Microsoft, Google (any company which has devs in China) and is a solved problem. Almost all people don't have physical access to data, and those who do need to go through access reviews to do anything.
    - eddieplan9 6y ago
      Quite the contrary: it’s illegal to not share data with government if requested: > Two pieces of legislation are of particular concern to governments — the 2017 National Intelligence Law and the 2014 Counter-Espionage Law. Article 7 of the first law states that "any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law," adding that the the state "protects" any individual and organization that aids it. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-data-to-china-government-if-asked-experts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-da...

ETHisso2017 6y ago

The US government just took a large step towards becoming like China's today, at least in terms of how it oversees its technology industry.

threeseed 6y ago

What Trump is doing is completely within the law otherwise TikTok and its investors would simply file a lawsuit. And every day governments around the world block mergers and acquisitions on competition grounds and block companies from being involved in sensitive projects e.g. Huawei.

croes 6y ago
Yeah, like they would a expect fair trial.
- nathanaldensr 6y ago
  It's not a criminal proceeding. These are arbitrary powers granted to the President by Congress. If you want to change that, lobby your Congressperson to repeal the 1988 law mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

IMTDb 6y ago

This is not a "sell or close" it's a "cut ties with a foreign government or stop operating here". TikTok can continue operating, just not in the US.

rfoo 6y ago
> cut ties with a foreign government or stop operating here How is it possible for someone to prove that they have no foreign government ties? Are there any evidence backing the "foreign government tie"?
- IMTDb 6y ago
  Proving it might be hard. But a first step would be to get rid of its internal committee of the Chinese Communist Party. And to stop making joint venture with government agencies. To put it in other words, if there was a dedicated spot for the US secretary of defence on the board of Google, how fast do you think other countries would take some actions against Google ?
  - rfoo 6y ago
    > stop making joint venture with government agencies. Good point, I don't know they have JVs with government agencies before, had to do some research on this. > get rid of its internal committee of the Chinese Communist Party This is hard, if not impossible, if you meant "党委" ("party committee") or "党支部" ("party branch"), because CCP demands any organization with more than 3 party members SHOULD have one. ("should" should be interpreted roughly as the same word in RFC Requirement Levels) And just like they usually have no problem if people chose to deny joining the party but may hassle you forever if you quit, if you try to shutdown an existing "committee" it would be seen as hostile. That being said, most of the mid-to-large-sized startups are actively ignoring these requirements until being forced, because apparently even if you are required to do so, you have to go through a hairy application process. And the "committee" in most corps (including mega corps) are essentially an empty shell, a symbolic thing to make CCP happy, so corps usually have no motivation to change the status quo. Yet CCP do extremely care about these symbolic stuff, it is even forcing foreign companies to do this, IIRC Disney agreed to do so.

tmaly 6y ago

How does this compare to forced technology transfers of a companies IP?

sdinsn 6y ago

They aren't forcing it to sell or close. If the US bans TikTok, TikTok will still exist in other countries.