4 ms·

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 e

by _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"
- geokon 6y ago
  It's cool you linked a first hand source! But what are you trying to point out specifically? A quick look seems the list is rather reasonable and not very long. It's some "cultural heritage" stuff like tea, ceramics, etc... some military related things and a very limited subset of resource extraction and chemical/biomedical production (things that aren't cutting edge from what I can tell) Am I looking at the wrong part?
  - hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
    Yeah, the tea and herbs part is the first part, near the middle and end you start to see things like heavy industry. There's a Marxist concept called "commanding heights of the economy" which refers to things like public utilities and transportation. Theoretically a socialist government can retain control of this limited set of industries while letting foreign capital develop the others, so that the capital can't totally control the government.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      If (!) the government were democratic that would seem sensible, otherwise Capitalists get to control the government and the demos rule is subverted.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries X. Art, Sports and Entertainment Industries 1. News agencies 2. Business of publishing, producing, master issuing, and importing of books, newspaper and periodical 3. Business of publishing, producing, master issuing and importing of audio and visual products and electronic publications 4. Radio stations, TV stations, radio and TV transmission networks at various levels (transmission stations, relaying stations, radio and TV satellites, satellite up-linking stations, satellite receiving stations, microwave stations, monitoring stations, cable broadcasting and TV transmission networks) 5. Companies of publishing and playing of broadcast and TV programs 6. Companies of films making, issuing, business 7. News website, network audiovisual service, on line service location, internet art management 8. Construction and management of golf course 9. Gambling industry (including gambling turf) 10. Eroticism Nice to know the Chinese Communist Golf Course lobby is alive and effective though! :)
treis 6y ago
>. 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. The problem isn't that their Chinese. It's that they have implicit and explicit support from the Chinese government that give them a leg up on non-Chinese companies.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Isn't that exactly what USA are doing for USA companies, eg trying to force UK to buy USA comms equipment (giving USA backdoors too presumably).
  - treis 6y ago
    They are doing similar things in specific cases on national security grounds but it's not the broad policy that China has.
- _lsq 6y ago
  The statement "they have implicit and explicit support from the Chinese government" is really indistinguishable from "the problem is they are Chinese".
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Only so long as that is their policy. The problem isn't the ethnicity or country per se, it's the state-partnership and monopoly system (intertwining them with a totalitarian regime persecuting a million Uighurs in realtime).
    - _lsq 6y ago
      What does ByteDance has to do with the persecution of Uighurs more than what Amazon/Google/Microsoft has to do with the killing in Iraq/Iran/Middle East incurred by the US? I don't have evidence for the latter but it seems like neither do you for the former? The founder of ByteDance has on multiple accounts critised the Chinese government: this is not an easy thing to do in China but blaming Chinese government's behaviors on a privately owned tech startup is a bit over the top.
Aunche 6y ago
> Google chose to comply initially but decided to pull out later on. Yeah because the Chinese government hacked them. Do they hack Chinese companies equally?
tatrajim 6y ago
| Microsoft/Apple choose to comply And look how Apple was treated. In 2015 their iBooks and iTunes Movies stores were first approved, but then six months later suddenly banned without warning or explanation. Why should China be surprised if the US reciprocates? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longer-immune-to-chinas-scrutiny-of-us-tech-firms.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longe...

by _lsq 6y ago

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"

geokon 6y ago
It's cool you linked a first hand source! But what are you trying to point out specifically? A quick look seems the list is rather reasonable and not very long. It's some "cultural heritage" stuff like tea, ceramics, etc... some military related things and a very limited subset of resource extraction and chemical/biomedical production (things that aren't cutting edge from what I can tell) Am I looking at the wrong part?
- hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
  Yeah, the tea and herbs part is the first part, near the middle and end you start to see things like heavy industry. There's a Marxist concept called "commanding heights of the economy" which refers to things like public utilities and transportation. Theoretically a socialist government can retain control of this limited set of industries while letting foreign capital develop the others, so that the capital can't totally control the government.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    If (!) the government were democratic that would seem sensible, otherwise Capitalists get to control the government and the demos rule is subverted.
- ethbro 6y ago
  Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries X. Art, Sports and Entertainment Industries 1. News agencies 2. Business of publishing, producing, master issuing, and importing of books, newspaper and periodical 3. Business of publishing, producing, master issuing and importing of audio and visual products and electronic publications 4. Radio stations, TV stations, radio and TV transmission networks at various levels (transmission stations, relaying stations, radio and TV satellites, satellite up-linking stations, satellite receiving stations, microwave stations, monitoring stations, cable broadcasting and TV transmission networks) 5. Companies of publishing and playing of broadcast and TV programs 6. Companies of films making, issuing, business 7. News website, network audiovisual service, on line service location, internet art management 8. Construction and management of golf course 9. Gambling industry (including gambling turf) 10. Eroticism Nice to know the Chinese Communist Golf Course lobby is alive and effective though! :)

treis 6y ago

>. 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. The problem isn't that their Chinese. It's that they have implicit and explicit support from the Chinese government that give them a leg up on non-Chinese companies.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what USA are doing for USA companies, eg trying to force UK to buy USA comms equipment (giving USA backdoors too presumably).
- treis 6y ago
  They are doing similar things in specific cases on national security grounds but it's not the broad policy that China has.
_lsq 6y ago
The statement "they have implicit and explicit support from the Chinese government" is really indistinguishable from "the problem is they are Chinese".
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  Only so long as that is their policy. The problem isn't the ethnicity or country per se, it's the state-partnership and monopoly system (intertwining them with a totalitarian regime persecuting a million Uighurs in realtime).
  - _lsq 6y ago
    What does ByteDance has to do with the persecution of Uighurs more than what Amazon/Google/Microsoft has to do with the killing in Iraq/Iran/Middle East incurred by the US? I don't have evidence for the latter but it seems like neither do you for the former? The founder of ByteDance has on multiple accounts critised the Chinese government: this is not an easy thing to do in China but blaming Chinese government's behaviors on a privately owned tech startup is a bit over the top.

Aunche 6y ago

> Google chose to comply initially but decided to pull out later on. Yeah because the Chinese government hacked them. Do they hack Chinese companies equally?

tatrajim 6y ago

| Microsoft/Apple choose to comply And look how Apple was treated. In 2015 their iBooks and iTunes Movies stores were first approved, but then six months later suddenly banned without warning or explanation. Why should China be surprised if the US reciprocates? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longer-immune-to-chinas-scrutiny-of-us-tech-firms.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longe...