12 ms·

It feels unequal after this was called censorship and anti-democratic, being used as a basis for propaganda against China, for years?

MattGaiser 6y ago
I suspect the ban will just be on the monetization. So they can keep TikTok and WeChat, but will not be able to profit from them.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  The order seems sufficiently broadly worded to ban ads on either platform, hosting them in the US, etc.
- est 6y ago
  Monetization is also the reason China banned every US Internet service.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    Google is still selling ads in China, so monetization doesn't appear to be considered problematic.
    - est 6y ago
      > Google is still selling ads in China, More like Google is selling ads outside China for Chinese companies. Google Ads market share in China is really small.
  - powerapple 6y ago
    Funny enough, it is not. Of course, one of the reason Google got banned was because Baidu, its competitor watches it all the time, and every time it is not following the law, Baidu will file a complaint for it. Foreign businesses make good money in China.
- JulianMorrison 6y ago
  It's pretty ridiculous to claim that "you can exist, but not do business" is anything other than a ban. What are they supposed to do, panhandle?
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    It makes it clearly a business conflict, not a free speech one.
    - JulianMorrison 6y ago
      That's a false dichotomy - it's a third thing: nakedly political posturing.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  They have 45 days to agree on something, and that will determine "transactions" in this case. Pure pressure.
- modo_mario 6y ago
  Trump's set an ultimatum whereby tiktok's American operations will have to be sold to Microsoft or it gets banned.
rtx 6y ago
We can call it digital warfare.
stale2002 6y ago
Thats not unequal. They did it to us, so we are doing it to them. This is how trade relations have worked since forever. It is not complicated. If another country engages in negative trade actions to us, it seems reasonable to do similar trade sanctions against them, so that we are treating them similarly to how they are treating us. This is the basis of most international trade agreements and relations. If a country puts a tariff on you, then it is almost certain that a tariff will be put on them as well. If you don't respond, then you are letting people take advantage of you, and it encourages them to continue to do it in the future. This is basic trade relations, and game theory 101. This is simple stuff. This is how international relations works on numerous different fronts. It is simple accepted, basic, and uncontroversial, that, in international relations, when a country does a bad thing to you, then there is often a response to that bad thing, and you don't just let them get away with it. This is uncontroversial to anyone who knows anything about international relations.
- ulfw 6y ago
  Childish. Then again, that‘s the US in a nutshell in 2020.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Tit for tat reciprocity is the basis of most modern trade relations. To give a related, similar, but not exactly the same example, in order to demonstrate this idea of reciprocal trade relations: If country A puts a tariff on country B, then it is almost guaranteed that Country B will put the same exact tariff on country A. This example is used to demonstrate the principle of trade related relations. This is how trade relations have worked for a very long time. And actions regarding international, hundred billion dollar companies, are going to be related to this idea of trade and reciprocal trade relations.
    - ulfw 6y ago
      What tariff? What trade? What does this action have to do with either?
kortilla 6y ago
Unequal? You’re suggesting that blocking just monetary transactions with two companies is somehow worse than the thousands of sites blocked in China?
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Yeah, "unequal" doesn't make sense. How about "hypocritical". By doing this the US loses a lot of its footing to criticize China's behavior. The US is supposed to be the land of the free, but this looks less than free.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    TikTok is not in the US. "Land of The Free" never applied to different lands with different government. Land of the Free didn't mean the British could move in and run things.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. // I guess the "only for those people living within the bounds of USA." was inadvertently missed off the end there? /s I think the 14th amendment to the Constitution strictly speaking says that "any person" (contrasted to Citizens) under the auspices of the USA should get equal treatment in law too. >No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive _any person_ of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. // Maybe this doesn't apply with federal laws (if so, what does restrain them??).
      - exclusiv 6y ago
        In order to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you have to address those that infringe upon it.
_lsq 6y ago
No it's not. 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.
- ethbro 6y ago
  > The Chinese government sets their (extremely authoritarian) rules on censorship for companies to legally operate in China but the rules apply to everyone equally. Censorship requirements are the least restrictive Chinese law. Look at industries where foreign companies are outright restricted (must form non controlling joint venture with local partner) or prohibited from operating in: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/aaa/201203/20120308027837.shtml http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/aaa/20120... See: "Catalogue of Restricted Foreign Investment Industries" and "Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries"

MattGaiser 6y ago

I suspect the ban will just be on the monetization. So they can keep TikTok and WeChat, but will not be able to profit from them.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
The order seems sufficiently broadly worded to ban ads on either platform, hosting them in the US, etc.
est 6y ago
Monetization is also the reason China banned every US Internet service.
- yorwba 6y ago
  Google is still selling ads in China, so monetization doesn't appear to be considered problematic.
  - est 6y ago
    > Google is still selling ads in China, More like Google is selling ads outside China for Chinese companies. Google Ads market share in China is really small.
- powerapple 6y ago
  Funny enough, it is not. Of course, one of the reason Google got banned was because Baidu, its competitor watches it all the time, and every time it is not following the law, Baidu will file a complaint for it. Foreign businesses make good money in China.
JulianMorrison 6y ago
It's pretty ridiculous to claim that "you can exist, but not do business" is anything other than a ban. What are they supposed to do, panhandle?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  It makes it clearly a business conflict, not a free speech one.
  - JulianMorrison 6y ago
    That's a false dichotomy - it's a third thing: nakedly political posturing.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
They have 45 days to agree on something, and that will determine "transactions" in this case. Pure pressure.
modo_mario 6y ago
Trump's set an ultimatum whereby tiktok's American operations will have to be sold to Microsoft or it gets banned.

rtx 6y ago

We can call it digital warfare.

stale2002 6y ago

Thats not unequal. They did it to us, so we are doing it to them. This is how trade relations have worked since forever. It is not complicated. If another country engages in negative trade actions to us, it seems reasonable to do similar trade sanctions against them, so that we are treating them similarly to how they are treating us. This is the basis of most international trade agreements and relations. If a country puts a tariff on you, then it is almost certain that a tariff will be put on them as well. If you don't respond, then you are letting people take advantage of you, and it encourages them to continue to do it in the future. This is basic trade relations, and game theory 101. This is simple stuff. This is how international relations works on numerous different fronts. It is simple accepted, basic, and uncontroversial, that, in international relations, when a country does a bad thing to you, then there is often a response to that bad thing, and you don't just let them get away with it. This is uncontroversial to anyone who knows anything about international relations.

ulfw 6y ago
Childish. Then again, that‘s the US in a nutshell in 2020.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Tit for tat reciprocity is the basis of most modern trade relations. To give a related, similar, but not exactly the same example, in order to demonstrate this idea of reciprocal trade relations: If country A puts a tariff on country B, then it is almost guaranteed that Country B will put the same exact tariff on country A. This example is used to demonstrate the principle of trade related relations. This is how trade relations have worked for a very long time. And actions regarding international, hundred billion dollar companies, are going to be related to this idea of trade and reciprocal trade relations.
  - ulfw 6y ago
    What tariff? What trade? What does this action have to do with either?

kortilla 6y ago

Unequal? You’re suggesting that blocking just monetary transactions with two companies is somehow worse than the thousands of sites blocked in China?

Thorrez 6y ago
Yeah, "unequal" doesn't make sense. How about "hypocritical". By doing this the US loses a lot of its footing to criticize China's behavior. The US is supposed to be the land of the free, but this looks less than free.
- sukilot 6y ago
  TikTok is not in the US. "Land of The Free" never applied to different lands with different government. Land of the Free didn't mean the British could move in and run things.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. // I guess the "only for those people living within the bounds of USA." was inadvertently missed off the end there? /s I think the 14th amendment to the Constitution strictly speaking says that "any person" (contrasted to Citizens) under the auspices of the USA should get equal treatment in law too. >No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive _any person_ of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. // Maybe this doesn't apply with federal laws (if so, what does restrain them??).
    - exclusiv 6y ago
      In order to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you have to address those that infringe upon it.

_lsq 6y ago

No it's not. 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.

ethbro 6y ago
> The Chinese government sets their (extremely authoritarian) rules on censorship for companies to legally operate in China but the rules apply to everyone equally. Censorship requirements are the least restrictive Chinese law. Look at industries where foreign companies are outright restricted (must form non controlling joint venture with local partner) or prohibited from operating in: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/aaa/201203/20120308027837.shtml http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/aaa/20120... See: "Catalogue of Restricted Foreign Investment Industries" and "Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries"