3 ms·

censorship and spying by the CCP is an important issue, but i don't understand why anyone should let chinese apps operate in their market when china doesn't rec

censorship and spying by the CCP is an important issue, but i don't understand why anyone should let chinese apps operate in their market when china doesn't reciprocate. the trade issue alone is enough for me to support banning it the rest is just noise.

breakfastduck 6y ago
I'm no fan or Trump or general US foreign policy, but how these stories are being spun as the US being the bogeyman and a censor when China literally filters the foreign internet and dictates which apps are available for use in the country. It's absurd we should allow apps with deep CCP interests on our networks and devices when they veraciously block & censor any access to their people.
- njharman 6y ago
  The point is we do allow apps with deep USA interests. USA propaganda, censorship, and surveilence is not "good". There is universal, unalienable, human rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They do not have absolute control over them. Govs "rights" end where ours start. Routinely forgotten when people get fear mongered or try hard waving the flag.
- t0mbstone 6y ago
  So it's bad when China censors free speech and restricts apps like Facebook in their country (because the US is using Facebook to spy on Chinese citizens), but it's good when the US does it? I swear, it's like people aren't even capable of logical thought anymore.
xvector 6y ago
China absolutely allows American apps to run so long as they adhere to the law. Google, FB etc voluntarily pulled out of China because they took moral objection to said laws. However, this is unprecedented as the US isn’t giving TikTok a law to adhere to. It’s just a ban.
- jwilliamson 6y ago
  To further this, American apps like LinkedIn or Github are still allowed in China because they obey the law.
  - z_ 6y ago
    What does the law require of foreign corporations to operate in China? The requirements may have been too steep for others e.g. source code disclosure.
    - jwilliamson 6y ago
      Facebook was banned after they refused to identify rioters who were using Messenger to communicate. Google was banned because they wouldn't comply with content restrictions.
- learc83 6y ago
  I have seen people posting this exact same comment almost word for word in every tick tok thread. It’s absurdly disingenuous. 1. China has many industries that outright ban US company participation. 2. “Adhering to the law” involves giving a Chinese company 51% control of the joint venture and forced IP transfer so that your company can be replaced ASAP. 3. China arbitrarily and capriciously enforces the law to the extent that “following the law” is impossible. China has often punished western companies for doing things outside the country for which there is no law to violate. Just look at what happens if your parent company lists Taiwan in a drop down on their website (outside of China).
shalmanese 6y ago
Because it implicitly buys into the Chinese framing of cyber-sovereignty which is that a country that is not in control of its citizens' communication platforms cannot properly be considered sovereign in the same way that a state that would let a foreign private company decide how its border policy worked would also not be a fully sovereign state. The US has been going around the world saying it's totally fine that the algorithms affecting the information diet of every non-US, non-China citizen is under the control of a few American regulated private companies that have limited accountability to that country's government. If, as soon as a non-American company has the same leverage over American citizens, the US government immediately starts freaking out, then it significantly weakens the integrity of that argument. For example, Facebook misinformation was a significant catalyst for the persecution and massacre of the Rohingyas. It wasn't until, I think, last year, that Facebook finally got around to hiring a policy expert on Myanmar and only because of the bad Western press it got, not because of any action the Myanmar government itself could have initiated. America's do as I say, not as I do attitude is going to push more and more countries to require some form of cyber-sovereignty as a market condition for access now that the US has laid the precedent. I predicted last year that cyber-sovereignty was going to be one of the defining issues in tech for the next decade and we're about to start seeing whether some of the predictions I made will come true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19824699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19824699
- rumanator 6y ago
  > (..) as soon as a non-American company has the same leverage over American citizens, the US government immediately starts freaking out, "Freaking out" is a loaded term that employs weasel words to make believe that it's silly for a nation to be wary of outsider's influence. It is far from silly. It's the most basic of precautions. Considering that on the other side there's China's totalitarian dictatorship, not only are these precautions very basic but also absolutely necessary.

breakfastduck 6y ago

I'm no fan or Trump or general US foreign policy, but how these stories are being spun as the US being the bogeyman and a censor when China literally filters the foreign internet and dictates which apps are available for use in the country. It's absurd we should allow apps with deep CCP interests on our networks and devices when they veraciously block & censor any access to their people.

njharman 6y ago
The point is we do allow apps with deep USA interests. USA propaganda, censorship, and surveilence is not "good". There is universal, unalienable, human rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They do not have absolute control over them. Govs "rights" end where ours start. Routinely forgotten when people get fear mongered or try hard waving the flag.
t0mbstone 6y ago
So it's bad when China censors free speech and restricts apps like Facebook in their country (because the US is using Facebook to spy on Chinese citizens), but it's good when the US does it? I swear, it's like people aren't even capable of logical thought anymore.

xvector 6y ago

China absolutely allows American apps to run so long as they adhere to the law. Google, FB etc voluntarily pulled out of China because they took moral objection to said laws. However, this is unprecedented as the US isn’t giving TikTok a law to adhere to. It’s just a ban.

jwilliamson 6y ago
To further this, American apps like LinkedIn or Github are still allowed in China because they obey the law.
- z_ 6y ago
  What does the law require of foreign corporations to operate in China? The requirements may have been too steep for others e.g. source code disclosure.
  - jwilliamson 6y ago
    Facebook was banned after they refused to identify rioters who were using Messenger to communicate. Google was banned because they wouldn't comply with content restrictions.
learc83 6y ago
I have seen people posting this exact same comment almost word for word in every tick tok thread. It’s absurdly disingenuous. 1. China has many industries that outright ban US company participation. 2. “Adhering to the law” involves giving a Chinese company 51% control of the joint venture and forced IP transfer so that your company can be replaced ASAP. 3. China arbitrarily and capriciously enforces the law to the extent that “following the law” is impossible. China has often punished western companies for doing things outside the country for which there is no law to violate. Just look at what happens if your parent company lists Taiwan in a drop down on their website (outside of China).

shalmanese 6y ago

Because it implicitly buys into the Chinese framing of cyber-sovereignty which is that a country that is not in control of its citizens' communication platforms cannot properly be considered sovereign in the same way that a state that would let a foreign private company decide how its border policy worked would also not be a fully sovereign state. The US has been going around the world saying it's totally fine that the algorithms affecting the information diet of every non-US, non-China citizen is under the control of a few American regulated private companies that have limited accountability to that country's government. If, as soon as a non-American company has the same leverage over American citizens, the US government immediately starts freaking out, then it significantly weakens the integrity of that argument. For example, Facebook misinformation was a significant catalyst for the persecution and massacre of the Rohingyas. It wasn't until, I think, last year, that Facebook finally got around to hiring a policy expert on Myanmar and only because of the bad Western press it got, not because of any action the Myanmar government itself could have initiated. America's do as I say, not as I do attitude is going to push more and more countries to require some form of cyber-sovereignty as a market condition for access now that the US has laid the precedent. I predicted last year that cyber-sovereignty was going to be one of the defining issues in tech for the next decade and we're about to start seeing whether some of the predictions I made will come true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19824699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19824699

rumanator 6y ago
> (..) as soon as a non-American company has the same leverage over American citizens, the US government immediately starts freaking out, "Freaking out" is a loaded term that employs weasel words to make believe that it's silly for a nation to be wary of outsider's influence. It is far from silly. It's the most basic of precautions. Considering that on the other side there's China's totalitarian dictatorship, not only are these precautions very basic but also absolutely necessary.