5 ms·

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 stil

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.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
> FB, Google sell billions in ads to China Citation needed. Both are effectively completely blocked in China by the GFW.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Chinese buys FB ads to sell in other regions, same with Google. They have other business presence there too. It's small relative to global operations, but point is, if they follow the law, they can operate legally. Like Microsoft. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-focus/facebook-defies-china-headwinds-with-new-ad-sales-push-idUSKBN1Z616Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-focus/face...
- pishpash 6y ago
  Ads are sold on the platforms for clicks outside China. There may be other B2B revenue streams.
- yorwba 6y ago
  Google the search engine is blocked in China. Google Ads aren't. It used to be the case that if you visited a website with Google Ads from China without VPN, most of those ads would be for VPN services. Last year, Google stopped showing VPN ads in China to comply with Chinese regulations: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-bans-vpn-ads-in-china/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-bans-vpn-ads-in-china/
loceng 6y ago
The question isn't if you can participate but if you should participate which is arguably directly or indirectly supporting and/or benefiting from an economy run by the CCP who also have been accused by the United Nations of genocide at their concentration camps for million+ Uighurs.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  > accused by the United Nations of genocide at their concentration camps for million+ Uighurs. UN did not claim this. Adrian Zenz who works for US interests claimed it meets UN definitions to justify XPCC sanctions despite knowing full well this was going on for past 5 years when policy started. Just like how this entire narrative was started by Zenz in a presentation at a US funded panel affiliated with UN, but not UN itself. The only real UN thermometer is US getting 23 countries to support XJ as a human rights issue, and China getting 56 countries to support it as re-education. UN will never rule this as cultural genocide (what it is) let alone genocide (what it isn't). CCP also raised 1B out of poverty and is responsible for 30% of global growth, so really on balance a few million Uyghurs+Tibetians+HKers+ eventually Taiwan getting their human rights violated isn't convincing arithmetic for billions in the rest of the developing world who relies on Chinese growth, when magnitudes more are being screwed in Middle East for no tangible gain. CCP bad, but also good.
  - loceng 6y ago
    "CCP also raised 1B out of poverty and is responsible for 30% of global growth, so really on balance a few million Uyghurs+Tibetians+HKers+ eventually Taiwan getting their human rights violated isn't convincing arithmetic for billions in the rest of the developing world who relies on Chinese growth, when magnitudes more are being screwed in Middle East for no tangible gain. CCP bad, but also good." Don't you think China's growth could have been possible without all of their tyrannical mechanisms, nor genocides and taking over other people's territory? Christ, you seem to be a heartless person - and I think anyone reading what you wrote would observe that, no wonder people are downvoting you. Maybe develop an open heart so you can evolve your logic to include compassion, it takes work by the way to work through and understand there is a different path that isn't acceptable of blunt force and violence that you just clearly articulated you're accepting of; curious if would you like or love if you and your family were on the receiving end of pillaging, abuse, violence, torture?
ottolin 6y ago
Oh come on, you want to talk about rules. When did CCP follow the rules that it agreed to follow when entering WTO? Laws in authoritarian China are the tool for oppression. It is not well written and can be interpreted as how CCP like.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  You do know that China is SIGNIFICANTLY better than US in trade fairness according to WTO statistics right? Like it's NOT EVEN CLOSE. Even if you normalize for accession time, and the fact that China had more onerous accession protocols. China has 1/3 of the complaint of US. Also go look up dispute resolution adherence. China also adheres to rulings more consistently than US, who by the way is locking up the WTO dispute resolution system by blocking judges, despite being the largest abuser of the system. Again, by far. >China was involved in 65 disputes with 9 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 2001 through 2018. China has been the complainant 21 times and the respondent 44 times. >United States was involved in 279 disputes with 42 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 1995 through 2018. The United States has been the complainant 124 times and the respondent 155 times. For comparison >The EU was involved in 190 disputes with 28 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 1995 through 2018. The European Union has been the complainant 104 times and the respondent 86 times. > Canada was involved in 63 disputes with 11 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 1995 through 2019. Canada has been the complainant 40 times and the respondent 23 times. Yup, China, a massive trading nation is about as bad as Canada. US, one of the least trade dependent nations is worse than EU (2nd worst offender) a coalition of countries with their own interests, many of whom trades massively. Let that set in. This is from CSIS that scrapes directly from WTO dispute archives. -https://chinapower.csis.org/china-world-trade-organization-wto/ https://chinapower.csis.org/china-world-trade-organization-w... In terms of trade barriers US has more protectionist measures than China. -https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/wp-content/uploads/usa_protectionism.png https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/pub... -https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/08/30/us-companies-china-unfair-but-we-dont-really-care/#971c87b4adf9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/08/30/us-compani... The real issue is, Chinese protectionist policies disproportionately disadvantages western tech, industries that's bread and butter of western supremacy and has huge lobbying voices. That's true everywhere for strategic industries. Canada cries in Bombardier, Boeing laughs. But absolutely threatenning if China is actually competitive in said industries, i.e. all the US anxiety after Made in China 2025 -> Huawei -> IC -> TikTok. Mcdonalds, Coke, Ford... they're doing great as were majority of western companies before tariffs. Regardless, laws are laws, every Chinese company in China learned to comply after growing pains... so FAANG with more resources can't? I mean they didn't want to before because it required a lot of expensive human moderation... which Chinese companies spend resources developing. Guess what, last few years western platforms had to build the same moderation infrastructure to deal with violence China had. That's why Google and Facebook was comfortable reentering the market. If US wants a different set of laws for Chinese companies, go legislate them, like China does. Instead of arbitrary EOs. You know how US claims Chinsese companies are subservient to CCP... except can't find evidence of it. Meanwhile US pulls entities lists on Huawei and EOs according to electioneering, proving that US companies are absolutely subservient to gov. Look hypocrisy is fine, especially if geopolitics involved, but don't try to moralize that you're any better. It looks ridiculous, especially when you're qualitatively and quantitatively worse.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago

> FB, Google sell billions in ads to China Citation needed. Both are effectively completely blocked in China by the GFW.

dirtyid 6y ago
Chinese buys FB ads to sell in other regions, same with Google. They have other business presence there too. It's small relative to global operations, but point is, if they follow the law, they can operate legally. Like Microsoft. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-focus/facebook-defies-china-headwinds-with-new-ad-sales-push-idUSKBN1Z616Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-focus/face...
pishpash 6y ago
Ads are sold on the platforms for clicks outside China. There may be other B2B revenue streams.
yorwba 6y ago
Google the search engine is blocked in China. Google Ads aren't. It used to be the case that if you visited a website with Google Ads from China without VPN, most of those ads would be for VPN services. Last year, Google stopped showing VPN ads in China to comply with Chinese regulations: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-bans-vpn-ads-in-china/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-bans-vpn-ads-in-china/

loceng 6y ago

The question isn't if you can participate but if you should participate which is arguably directly or indirectly supporting and/or benefiting from an economy run by the CCP who also have been accused by the United Nations of genocide at their concentration camps for million+ Uighurs.

dirtyid 6y ago
> accused by the United Nations of genocide at their concentration camps for million+ Uighurs. UN did not claim this. Adrian Zenz who works for US interests claimed it meets UN definitions to justify XPCC sanctions despite knowing full well this was going on for past 5 years when policy started. Just like how this entire narrative was started by Zenz in a presentation at a US funded panel affiliated with UN, but not UN itself. The only real UN thermometer is US getting 23 countries to support XJ as a human rights issue, and China getting 56 countries to support it as re-education. UN will never rule this as cultural genocide (what it is) let alone genocide (what it isn't). CCP also raised 1B out of poverty and is responsible for 30% of global growth, so really on balance a few million Uyghurs+Tibetians+HKers+ eventually Taiwan getting their human rights violated isn't convincing arithmetic for billions in the rest of the developing world who relies on Chinese growth, when magnitudes more are being screwed in Middle East for no tangible gain. CCP bad, but also good.
- loceng 6y ago
  "CCP also raised 1B out of poverty and is responsible for 30% of global growth, so really on balance a few million Uyghurs+Tibetians+HKers+ eventually Taiwan getting their human rights violated isn't convincing arithmetic for billions in the rest of the developing world who relies on Chinese growth, when magnitudes more are being screwed in Middle East for no tangible gain. CCP bad, but also good." Don't you think China's growth could have been possible without all of their tyrannical mechanisms, nor genocides and taking over other people's territory? Christ, you seem to be a heartless person - and I think anyone reading what you wrote would observe that, no wonder people are downvoting you. Maybe develop an open heart so you can evolve your logic to include compassion, it takes work by the way to work through and understand there is a different path that isn't acceptable of blunt force and violence that you just clearly articulated you're accepting of; curious if would you like or love if you and your family were on the receiving end of pillaging, abuse, violence, torture?

ottolin 6y ago

Oh come on, you want to talk about rules. When did CCP follow the rules that it agreed to follow when entering WTO? Laws in authoritarian China are the tool for oppression. It is not well written and can be interpreted as how CCP like.

dirtyid 6y ago
You do know that China is SIGNIFICANTLY better than US in trade fairness according to WTO statistics right? Like it's NOT EVEN CLOSE. Even if you normalize for accession time, and the fact that China had more onerous accession protocols. China has 1/3 of the complaint of US. Also go look up dispute resolution adherence. China also adheres to rulings more consistently than US, who by the way is locking up the WTO dispute resolution system by blocking judges, despite being the largest abuser of the system. Again, by far. >China was involved in 65 disputes with 9 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 2001 through 2018. China has been the complainant 21 times and the respondent 44 times. >United States was involved in 279 disputes with 42 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 1995 through 2018. The United States has been the complainant 124 times and the respondent 155 times. For comparison >The EU was involved in 190 disputes with 28 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 1995 through 2018. The European Union has been the complainant 104 times and the respondent 86 times. > Canada was involved in 63 disputes with 11 Economies from the time it acceded to the WTO in 1995 through 2019. Canada has been the complainant 40 times and the respondent 23 times. Yup, China, a massive trading nation is about as bad as Canada. US, one of the least trade dependent nations is worse than EU (2nd worst offender) a coalition of countries with their own interests, many of whom trades massively. Let that set in. This is from CSIS that scrapes directly from WTO dispute archives. -https://chinapower.csis.org/china-world-trade-organization-wto/ https://chinapower.csis.org/china-world-trade-organization-w... In terms of trade barriers US has more protectionist measures than China. -https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/wp-content/uploads/usa_protectionism.png https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/pub... -https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/08/30/us-companies-china-unfair-but-we-dont-really-care/#971c87b4adf9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/08/30/us-compani... The real issue is, Chinese protectionist policies disproportionately disadvantages western tech, industries that's bread and butter of western supremacy and has huge lobbying voices. That's true everywhere for strategic industries. Canada cries in Bombardier, Boeing laughs. But absolutely threatenning if China is actually competitive in said industries, i.e. all the US anxiety after Made in China 2025 -> Huawei -> IC -> TikTok. Mcdonalds, Coke, Ford... they're doing great as were majority of western companies before tariffs. Regardless, laws are laws, every Chinese company in China learned to comply after growing pains... so FAANG with more resources can't? I mean they didn't want to before because it required a lot of expensive human moderation... which Chinese companies spend resources developing. Guess what, last few years western platforms had to build the same moderation infrastructure to deal with violence China had. That's why Google and Facebook was comfortable reentering the market. If US wants a different set of laws for Chinese companies, go legislate them, like China does. Instead of arbitrary EOs. You know how US claims Chinsese companies are subservient to CCP... except can't find evidence of it. Meanwhile US pulls entities lists on Huawei and EOs according to electioneering, proving that US companies are absolutely subservient to gov. Look hypocrisy is fine, especially if geopolitics involved, but don't try to moralize that you're any better. It looks ridiculous, especially when you're qualitatively and quantitatively worse.