4 ms·

> China's basis is that foreign companies won't respect their laws This is fallacious. China is an authoritarian regime, not a democracy under the rule of law

> China's basis is that foreign companies won't respect their laws This is fallacious. China is an authoritarian regime, not a democracy under the rule of law. There are laws in China, but ultimately a corporation is subject to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party. International free market trade is founded on reciprocity - you open your markets and I open mine, under analogous regulatory conditions. Can US companies such as Facebook or Google operate with the same degree of freedom that TikTok does in the West? Furthermore, and perhaps more relevantly to your question of whether TikTok has broken any US laws, it may be that it has. I have a very limited understanding of US politics and law but I do know that (a) there's a trainload of highly complex national security regulations, (b) Executive Orders provide the President a means to "steer" the application of the Law, and in this case it may be simply a way of enforcing codes that have been applied very loosely or not enforced until at all now. I don't know if the EO will hold ground or not, but if it doesn't, I hope the US (and eventually the EU, where I am a citizen) find other ways to legally challenge the abhorrent asymmetry in playing conditions for software companies in China vs. the Democratic West.

disgu 6y ago
> China is an authoritarian regime, not a democracy under the rule of law. There are laws in China, but ultimately a corporation is subject to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party. Would you say it's kind of like the US President being able to just ban things he just says are threats to National Security? All of the authoritarian regimes have laws that specifically allow them to do what they do. They're usually authoritarian because they can and do call everything they don't like a threat to National Security. Where is the actual proof here? Where can everyone take a look at it?
- arcturus17 6y ago
  Absolutely not, because the separation of powers guarantees that if he botches the Executive Order and it has no legal ground, it will fall under the weight of the Law. No such mechanisms exists in an authoritarian regime like the Chinese.
  - disgu 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you're on about. Authoritarian states do have laws to justify what they do. Even Saudi Arabia has them. You can get a lawyer, you can get a judge to review your case, you can appeal decisions. They do have separation of power as well. Read up about the countless cases in those countries. Enforcing national security laws are very, very often the reason for the most fucked up judgements. All those cases from North Korea? Yep, national security without verifiable proof of how it endangers national security.
    - arcturus17 6y ago
      > Authoritarian states do have laws to justify what they do From my original comment, which you replied to: > There are laws in China, but ultimately a corporation is subject to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party. Either you didn't read that part, chose to omit it, or you are being deliberately rude, questioning "what I'm on about". The difference between those authoritarian regimes and a democracy under the Rule of Law like the US is the degree in which the law can be arbitrarily superseded by an authority, such as a Party or Ruler, breaking the separation of powers. Comparing the legal systems and guarantees of China, North Korea or Saudi Arabia, with those of the US is disingenuous at best. You did not address the fundamental point which is that an Executive Order can be challenged in a Court of Law - it will be, in fact. Do you think a decision by the CCP, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un or Mohammad Bin Salman would be afforded the same level of guarantees?
      - disgu 6y ago
        > You did not address the fundamental point which is that an Executive Order can be challenged in a Court of Law - it will be, in fact. > Do you think a decision by the CCP, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un or Mohammad Bin Salman would be afforded the same level of guarantees? Yes, absolutely. It happens all the time. Those rulers use _the laws afforded to them_ to rule. It's completely wrong to suggest that they just do whatever the hell they want. That's just not the case at all. Please look into the topic. Those countries have laws that make it very, very easy for the rulers to justify doing whatever they want. MBS can put you in jail for live not because he's free to do whatever he wants but because the laws are designed in a way that gives him every reason to justify putting anyone in jail - as I mentioned, usually based on national security grounds. Those very same national security reasons that authoritarian regimes constantly use are being used by Trump. So yes, Trump being able to claim something a national security issue without having to provide proof, without giving the accused a chance to take a look at the evidence that supposedly exists against them, without them being able to defend themselves from the accusations, that's exactly what authoritarian regimes do.

disgu 6y ago

> China is an authoritarian regime, not a democracy under the rule of law. There are laws in China, but ultimately a corporation is subject to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party. Would you say it's kind of like the US President being able to just ban things he just says are threats to National Security? All of the authoritarian regimes have laws that specifically allow them to do what they do. They're usually authoritarian because they can and do call everything they don't like a threat to National Security. Where is the actual proof here? Where can everyone take a look at it?

arcturus17 6y ago
Absolutely not, because the separation of powers guarantees that if he botches the Executive Order and it has no legal ground, it will fall under the weight of the Law. No such mechanisms exists in an authoritarian regime like the Chinese.
- disgu 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you're on about. Authoritarian states do have laws to justify what they do. Even Saudi Arabia has them. You can get a lawyer, you can get a judge to review your case, you can appeal decisions. They do have separation of power as well. Read up about the countless cases in those countries. Enforcing national security laws are very, very often the reason for the most fucked up judgements. All those cases from North Korea? Yep, national security without verifiable proof of how it endangers national security.
  - arcturus17 6y ago
    > Authoritarian states do have laws to justify what they do From my original comment, which you replied to: > There are laws in China, but ultimately a corporation is subject to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party. Either you didn't read that part, chose to omit it, or you are being deliberately rude, questioning "what I'm on about". The difference between those authoritarian regimes and a democracy under the Rule of Law like the US is the degree in which the law can be arbitrarily superseded by an authority, such as a Party or Ruler, breaking the separation of powers. Comparing the legal systems and guarantees of China, North Korea or Saudi Arabia, with those of the US is disingenuous at best. You did not address the fundamental point which is that an Executive Order can be challenged in a Court of Law - it will be, in fact. Do you think a decision by the CCP, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un or Mohammad Bin Salman would be afforded the same level of guarantees?
    - disgu 6y ago
      > You did not address the fundamental point which is that an Executive Order can be challenged in a Court of Law - it will be, in fact. > Do you think a decision by the CCP, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un or Mohammad Bin Salman would be afforded the same level of guarantees? Yes, absolutely. It happens all the time. Those rulers use _the laws afforded to them_ to rule. It's completely wrong to suggest that they just do whatever the hell they want. That's just not the case at all. Please look into the topic. Those countries have laws that make it very, very easy for the rulers to justify doing whatever they want. MBS can put you in jail for live not because he's free to do whatever he wants but because the laws are designed in a way that gives him every reason to justify putting anyone in jail - as I mentioned, usually based on national security grounds. Those very same national security reasons that authoritarian regimes constantly use are being used by Trump. So yes, Trump being able to claim something a national security issue without having to provide proof, without giving the accused a chance to take a look at the evidence that supposedly exists against them, without them being able to defend themselves from the accusations, that's exactly what authoritarian regimes do.