6 ms·
Is there any precedent for a president to do such a thing? I am completely astonished and dumbstruck that everyone is ok with this.
by voisin 6y ago
Is there any precedent for a president to do such a thing? I am completely astonished and dumbstruck that everyone is ok with this.
- logicslave12 6y agoDumbstruck that we wouldn’t allow an adversarial country collect data on all of our citizens locations? And potentially more?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bmitc 6y agoIt 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?
- secondcoming 6y agoIt's easy... Chinese companies that operate internationally are controlled by the CCP.
- xvector 6y agoWhere’s your outrage over PRISM, which is magnitudes worse?
- lern_too_spel 6y agoWhat exactly do you think PRISM is? https://www.cnet.com/news/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/ https://www.cnet.com/news/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-...
- suyash 6y agoDumbstruck to find that there is a leader with a spine in this country? That's quite something.
- baby 6y agoDoesn’t this mean that the US is getting closer and closer to a dictatorship?
- perryizgr8 6y agoNo it means US has a leader who is finally thinking rationally about China, instead of falling into the greed trap that most other politicians have been stuck in. In my opinion, if China wants to be a part of the global economy, China must let the globe be part of its own economy. Facebook, Google, Twitter have been systematically forced out of China. Why should we let Chinese social media sites in our countries? The specific act of banning TikTok seems petty and uncalled for, but we have to start somewhere.
- alexmingoia 6y agoNo, we don’t. Trade restrictions on China are restrictions on the freedom of Americans.
- StandardFuture 6y agoBlocking two companies is not restricting trade with China. It is restricting trade with two companies. ... sigh
- perryizgr8 6y agoI understand that this makes sense from a libertarian perspective, but I believe there are certain exceptions to be made when dealing with authoritarian, abusive, and dangerous regimes. An example would be nuclear material and technology. US places a lot of restrictions on individuals' rights to trade these materials, but I believe it is necessary. So not all restrictions on individual rights are incorrect, when it comes to trading with foreigners.
- hiimtroymclure 6y agoAt 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?
- peteretep 6y agoAnti-China moves appear to have wide bipartisan support
- rswail 6y agoPlease demonstrate that TikTok actually "collect[s] info on US citizens" for the CCP or "spread[s] misinformation to benefit a foreign regime". Please also compare to Facebook/Cambridge Analytica or RT Now. This is a mercantilist stupid response to something that in no way is a "national security" issue. Sure, ban apps on government/military phones. That's truly about national security. But 13 year olds doing dance videos, or kpop fans DDOSing Trump's rally ticketing (ie actually an email fishing activity) is not national security. This is the same sort of isolationist bullshit that has the US DOS currently grading travel to New Zealand as "Level 2" because of their 23 cases of COVID. Sure, China and the CCP are nasty and infringe their own and other citizens human rights. But these so-called national security EOs are more like "waaaah, but he did it first!" response from a child than the mature response of the supposed lead nation of the Western world.
- chrisco255 6y agoPeople share all kinds of private, exploitable information on social media platforms. And social media is a powerful platform for spreading propaganda. Sorry, it's just too dangerous to let the CCP, who are absolute experts in propaganda, have that much influence in domestic affairs.
- badRNG 6y agoThe 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.
- TearsInTheRain 6y agoThe government frequently bans foreign products that have national security implications.
- badRNG 6y agoThe 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.
- googthrowaway42 6y agoDidn't they ban the use of Huawei in all telecommunication infrastructure a few months ago?
- iphone_elegance 6y agoEh, it's a pretty good propaganda channel
- blisseyGo 6y agoThe most recent example was Grindr which was first sold to Chinese company and the government had to force them to sell it back because the app contained location info of potentially sensitive military personnel.
- alexmingoia 6y agoTikTok is not a national security threat. That’s ridiculous.
- karterk 6y agoBecause 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.
- pqhwan 6y agoI 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.
- karterk 6y agoI agree with you on the overall perspective. But I do think exceptions can and do exist. This not just a case of “they did A, so we will respond with B”. It's a case of “they did A, B, C, etc. so we are responding with X after 10+ years“. To be fair, successive US administrations across party lines gave CCP a long enough rope.
- pqhwan 6y ago> “they did A, B, C, etc. so we are responding with X after 10+ years“ It’s the same, reactionary logic, that fails to give first concern for the desired end state. Delaying reactionary measures is what many call patience.
- nmfisher 6y agoAnd do you realize that, by imitating China's practices, the rest of the world now puts you in the same bucket as China? A vindictive, capricious country where millions of dollars in investment can be wiped away under the flimsiest of excuses in one pen stroke, by a single petty man, desperately seeking domestic political approval. I spent much of my life defending the USA's policies and practice, but this may well be the last straw.
- casefields 6y ago>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. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-trump-breakingviews-idUSKBN24Z05O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-trump-breaking...