13 ms·

As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very co

As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?

yibg 6y ago
As much as the US government would like people to believe otherwise, things like laws goes out the window pretty quickly when it comes to geopolitics. This isn't a new thing in the US either. Maybe just more people are realizing it recently.
- eecc 6y ago
  The farce at the UN Security Council that Colin Powell made years ago spelled that out pretty clearly already. If anything, it somewhat formally respected the role of the UN, but the brazen lying asserted how the USA wasn’t worried at all of the consequences
- iKevinShah 6y ago
  I am neither a US Citizen or a resident BUT this is not only about "geopolitics" but more about National Security too. There's literally a law in China which states you have to provide "crucial information for review" to the government if asked. You(the firm operating in China) cant deny that. Period. That itself is scary, regardless of whether or not politics / geopolitics is involved. The law (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law) : > Regarding the requirements for spot-checks and certifications, international law firms have warned that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > There's literally a law in China which states you have to provide "crucial information for review" to the government if asked. You(the firm operating in China) cant deny that. Period. Despite having a Chinese parent, isn't it the case that TikTok itself does not operate in China?
    - manigandham 6y ago
      That doesn't stop the parent company from being beholden to CCP's demands.
      - coliveira 6y ago
        Facebook is also behold to the US government demands, as we have seen in the hearings during the last few days.
        manigandham 6y ago
        You don't think there's a difference between USA vs CCP? There are many examples of standing up to the government in America. That doesn't happen in China.
    - iKevinShah 6y ago
      It doesn't but sends a good amount of data to China which they have not yet (to my information) clarified. Similar ban was implemented in India, which gives more context to what I am trying to say. Source: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206 And parent company will always have the dibs, if you will, on Tiktok. Regardless of whether tiktok is out of China or in.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      There is no firewall between TikTok and Bytedance, so basically you can think of them as one company producing 2 apps, one inside China and one outside.
  - 6y ago
- pjmlp 6y ago
  As European, that belongs to the first generation out of a dictorship, another thing that surprises me is the American belief that three letter agencies care about any law besides their own internal regulations. Even in the current democracy state, is my expectation that our own ones across the European states will do whatever it takes, with various degrees of flexibility.
  - fluffything 6y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. We have trade-deals across countries, and IMO these trade deals should account for access to markets, e.g., Chinese companies can operate in Europe freely (abiding by our laws) _if_ European companies can operate in China freely as well. Trade-deals change all the time, and when these change, some companies might get kick off. I think this is a functional and rational thing to do for the EU. If you don't have any deals or specific laws about it, then pretty much everything goes. Maybe the EU could have a law that all foreign companies that abide by the EU rules can operate in Europe freely, but I strongly doubt that. Every country does pretty much whatever they want in this regard (e.g. we see it with some countries allowing Huawei to sell 5G equipment, others forbidding it, and others like Germany attempting to forbid it without mentioning Huawei). All these countries have different rules, so they all end up doing their different stuff. China (+) is buying lots of EU companies, "forcing" them to produce and do engineering in China, with a Chinese partner, and then ripping them completely off, as part of their 2025 program. TBH I'm very concerned about some of the companies they have bought (e.g. Rukka). I am certain this is good for China, but I don't see how this can be good for the EU in the long term. China is very open that their plan is to acquire and become leaders in the technology, and then flip a switch and cut us out.. but they are the highest bidders today... (+) these are actually chinese companies, but sponsored and ordered by the Chinese government, with essentially unlimited funds.
ridaj 6y ago
It's not clear that the president's action is legal, but there are laws such as those empowering CFIUS to review acquisitions of US companies by foreign buyers (in this case, musical.ly) for any national security implications. These national security implications are probably far-fetched, but there's some theoretical basis for action here...
rwmj 6y ago
I'm not defending it, but there is a legal basis. CFIUS[1] laws give the president authority to close down foreign businesses under certain circumstances. (This is not to say "it's completely legal" - there are a bunch of ways this could be challenged). [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius/cfius-laws-and-guidance https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
- denzil_correa 6y ago
  Do those certain circumstances apply here? Shouldn’t there be a legal check from the judiciary?
  - detaro 6y ago
    TikTok is challenging the order in court.
dragonwriter 6y ago
There is a law that the President purports authorizes this; there is dispute as to whether the Presidential action is within the law.
rapsey 6y ago
The US must be viewed as an empire not just any country. If the empire sees something as a threat, it will find legal justifications for doing anything and it will absolutely make distinctions between local corporations or ones with too many ties to rival geopolitical states.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  This is the US, we've even threatened companies if they have too many ties to a rival political party. Let alone a rival political state. It's just the reality of the environment here in the US.
- unishark 6y ago
  Pretty much every country does that. Look at IP disputes where courts constantly find for their own country's company, often to the point of making new law at the supreme court level to do it. What does that have to do with empires? An empire rules over others, while any country will take care of its own.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    > Pretty much every country does that. The smart ones do. While TikTok is more domestic. Huawei is definitely viewed as an empire threat and the US is acting way beyond what other countries are doing.
eloisant 6y ago
The US has always be reckless when they want to take control of a foreign company. Other administrations have at least been a little more discreet, but it happened nonetheless. See what happened to Alstom for example. There is a book about that, "The American Trap".
mclightning 6y ago
I hate this "As a European" generalizations as if Europe has an entirely homogeneous spread of governance. Take this for a second; Bulgaria and Denmark is both Europe, or Hungary and Sweden.
- fuj 6y ago
  To make it worse, the "As a European" is usually followed by a very judgemental or even arrogant statement. As we, the enlightened, don't understand those hillbilly politics. What does the OP not understand? The concern of China controlling key economic and tech areas? OR that a president can block a company from operating in his country? As a European, I might not agree with the decision but I do understand the general concern behind it.
- senko 6y ago
  With EU being "ever-closer Union" and US being a federal country where states have a lot of local power, it's not as far-fetched as you'd think (although EU is of course nowehere near the level of integration that US is). Also, the same way "America" can mean "the US", it's not strange to see people colloquially refer to the EU countries as "Europe", though both are, technically, not correct.
- okamiueru 6y ago
  You are absolutely right in that it gives the wrong impression of "everyone thinks the same". That said, I don't think that is the intention, ever, when it's used. There are certain aspects in how things work in the US that are so far disconnected to how it is, in most of Europe, that is baffling. By an large, this difference applies to most of Europe. It is of course an oversimplification. But, here are a few boggling things: Politics (in particular, money in politics that looks like plain bribery, or political and misleading ads everywhere), for profit private prisons, no maternity leave, unpaid internships, healthcare related personal bankruptcies. The list goes on and on, and, since this is a by and large difference to Europe, you tend to see the "As a European" phrase.
  - askl56 6y ago
    I strongly disagree. There is nobody in Eastern Europe (or Western Europe if they know enough about politics) who is boggled by money in politics or misleading ads. There are countries in Europe that have had Gulags in the last 50 years, I doubt they are boggled by the idea of a for-profit prison system. As a European who has lived in America and now in SEA, this "as a European" is used by people who generally don't understand the variety of different life experience of people in Europe.
rorykoehler 6y ago
I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.
- erklik 6y ago
  I mean if that's the case, why not simply make laws to limit foreign companies access to the US market. As far as I know, the US hasn't actually passed any laws, right?
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    Being discretionary can also be reciprocated
    - erklik 6y ago
      I am sorry. I am not sure I understand what you mean? Could you clarify a little?
- tom-_- 6y ago
  It's easy to forget that China is still a developing nation (~$10k gdp/capita) and protectionist policy is designed to allow developing nations to strengthen domestic industries. If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
  - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
    >If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.
coliveira 6y ago
The US has a "democracy" where the president acts almost like a king. Of course there is a judiciary, but it is slow and doesn't meddle in most decisions affecting international affairs. This kind of behavior wouldn't be acceptable in the UK, for example, where there is a real monarchy. The actual law in the US is to take over other countries that are not labeled as "friends".
garmaine 6y ago
There are many laws, and precedent that allows that.
ageitgey 6y ago
Most countries have significant rules and regulations around foreign-owned corporations. Countries generally think it's important to their national security to prevent widespread foreign ownership of internal resources. But there is a trade-off where you make reciprocal deals with trusted foreign trade partners to facilitate trade and growth. Everything works smoothly when everyone plays by the same rules. China has some of the most draconian restrictions on foreign ownership anywhere yet still gets access to foreign markets. Major US corporations are often forced to set up Chinese-majority-owned subsidiaries to operate in China and must cede huge amounts of control to the Chinese government. Time after time, this results in locals ripping off the technology of the foreign company and then the foreign company being replaced by a local company. Look at the long history of US tech startups failing in China. The point is that whether you think this specific action is right or wrong, it's totally normal tit-for-tat geopolitics. Countries impose tons of restrictions on foreign-owned corporations. You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
- unishark 6y ago
  > You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way. In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  I think you missed my point. I don't really care whether this is the right move or not, and to be honest I don't really know. But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head." > You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me? Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.
Zafira 6y ago
The office of the US President has amassed a significant amount of authority over the years, with the general understanding that power must be used responsibly. The current occupant of the office seems to have little regard for the judicious use of that power. Really, nobody should be disagreeing that the rise of the PRC poses a serious threat to US interests, but wrapping everything in the boogeyman of national security and issuing legally dubious executive orders such as the one banning TikTok and WeChat give critics ammunition to claim we're not really following any sort of process here (i.e. the rule of law). "We need to do something about the PRC" is not a foundation for standing up to the PRC. Praising actions like the current fiasco with TikTok feels like praising a doctor who assaulted 15 people in the ER, vomited on the floor, punched a nurse in the face, but properly stitched up someone who had gotten their lip busted before leaving their shift. Nothing that has been done really sets up a plan for dealing with China even in the immediate future. The sudden forced closure of the Houston consulate lacks public context for the rapid escalation in hostilities and the same goes for the ban on Huawei. I have no doubt that there is something suspicious going on, but it is difficult to see a cohesive vision in all of these thrusts against the PRC and that is terrifying.
walllock 6y ago
As a different European, maybe at least some laws are created based on precedents ... maybe? Maybe there is a law coming, be careful what you wish for.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
To me, this whole TikTok escapade highlights just how dangerous the situation has become with privacy and "tech". From everything I have read and seen, "TikTok" is a gimmick, another frivolous way to kill time, a passing trend. This is not a company that produces anything important for society. Except when we consider that what the app purports to be for its users or advertisers is not its true value/purpose. TikTok is a surveillance vector. We can all pretend that privacy is not a serious issue except amongst tinfoil hats, activists or those tasked with defending the tech industry. However this bizarre story, to me, suggests otherwise. Personal data, access to it, the right to spy on millions of people, carried out by the private sector, is now being fought over by nation states. Younger generations should be up in arms over surveillance. Instead, at least in the US, they want to use these apps and work for these shameful companies. Older generations, who should know better, are willingly using Alexas and the like. Interesting times.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  I have noticed this too. It is very odd. I suppose everybody walking around with 2 cameras and a microphone in their pocket with widespread high-speed Internet connectivity is too much of a chance to miss for some institutions / agencies!
wdr1 6y ago
> As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What country do you live where this is not true?
hammock 6y ago
>As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. How did you feel about the COVID shutdown? Millions of businesses were just forced by government on very short notice to shut down operation

yibg 6y ago

As much as the US government would like people to believe otherwise, things like laws goes out the window pretty quickly when it comes to geopolitics. This isn't a new thing in the US either. Maybe just more people are realizing it recently.

eecc 6y ago
The farce at the UN Security Council that Colin Powell made years ago spelled that out pretty clearly already. If anything, it somewhat formally respected the role of the UN, but the brazen lying asserted how the USA wasn’t worried at all of the consequences
iKevinShah 6y ago
I am neither a US Citizen or a resident BUT this is not only about "geopolitics" but more about National Security too. There's literally a law in China which states you have to provide "crucial information for review" to the government if asked. You(the firm operating in China) cant deny that. Period. That itself is scary, regardless of whether or not politics / geopolitics is involved. The law (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law) : > Regarding the requirements for spot-checks and certifications, international law firms have warned that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There's literally a law in China which states you have to provide "crucial information for review" to the government if asked. You(the firm operating in China) cant deny that. Period. Despite having a Chinese parent, isn't it the case that TikTok itself does not operate in China?
  - manigandham 6y ago
    That doesn't stop the parent company from being beholden to CCP's demands.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      Facebook is also behold to the US government demands, as we have seen in the hearings during the last few days.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        You don't think there's a difference between USA vs CCP? There are many examples of standing up to the government in America. That doesn't happen in China.
  - iKevinShah 6y ago
    It doesn't but sends a good amount of data to China which they have not yet (to my information) clarified. Similar ban was implemented in India, which gives more context to what I am trying to say. Source: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206 And parent company will always have the dibs, if you will, on Tiktok. Regardless of whether tiktok is out of China or in.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    There is no firewall between TikTok and Bytedance, so basically you can think of them as one company producing 2 apps, one inside China and one outside.
- 6y ago
pjmlp 6y ago
As European, that belongs to the first generation out of a dictorship, another thing that surprises me is the American belief that three letter agencies care about any law besides their own internal regulations. Even in the current democracy state, is my expectation that our own ones across the European states will do whatever it takes, with various degrees of flexibility.
- fluffything 6y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. We have trade-deals across countries, and IMO these trade deals should account for access to markets, e.g., Chinese companies can operate in Europe freely (abiding by our laws) _if_ European companies can operate in China freely as well. Trade-deals change all the time, and when these change, some companies might get kick off. I think this is a functional and rational thing to do for the EU. If you don't have any deals or specific laws about it, then pretty much everything goes. Maybe the EU could have a law that all foreign companies that abide by the EU rules can operate in Europe freely, but I strongly doubt that. Every country does pretty much whatever they want in this regard (e.g. we see it with some countries allowing Huawei to sell 5G equipment, others forbidding it, and others like Germany attempting to forbid it without mentioning Huawei). All these countries have different rules, so they all end up doing their different stuff. China (+) is buying lots of EU companies, "forcing" them to produce and do engineering in China, with a Chinese partner, and then ripping them completely off, as part of their 2025 program. TBH I'm very concerned about some of the companies they have bought (e.g. Rukka). I am certain this is good for China, but I don't see how this can be good for the EU in the long term. China is very open that their plan is to acquire and become leaders in the technology, and then flip a switch and cut us out.. but they are the highest bidders today... (+) these are actually chinese companies, but sponsored and ordered by the Chinese government, with essentially unlimited funds.

ridaj 6y ago

It's not clear that the president's action is legal, but there are laws such as those empowering CFIUS to review acquisitions of US companies by foreign buyers (in this case, musical.ly) for any national security implications. These national security implications are probably far-fetched, but there's some theoretical basis for action here...

rwmj 6y ago

I'm not defending it, but there is a legal basis. CFIUS[1] laws give the president authority to close down foreign businesses under certain circumstances. (This is not to say "it's completely legal" - there are a bunch of ways this could be challenged). [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius/cfius-laws-and-guidance https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...

denzil_correa 6y ago
Do those certain circumstances apply here? Shouldn’t there be a legal check from the judiciary?
- detaro 6y ago
  TikTok is challenging the order in court.

dragonwriter 6y ago

There is a law that the President purports authorizes this; there is dispute as to whether the Presidential action is within the law.

rapsey 6y ago

The US must be viewed as an empire not just any country. If the empire sees something as a threat, it will find legal justifications for doing anything and it will absolutely make distinctions between local corporations or ones with too many ties to rival geopolitical states.

bilbo0s 6y ago
This is the US, we've even threatened companies if they have too many ties to a rival political party. Let alone a rival political state. It's just the reality of the environment here in the US.
unishark 6y ago
Pretty much every country does that. Look at IP disputes where courts constantly find for their own country's company, often to the point of making new law at the supreme court level to do it. What does that have to do with empires? An empire rules over others, while any country will take care of its own.
- rapsey 6y ago
  > Pretty much every country does that. The smart ones do. While TikTok is more domestic. Huawei is definitely viewed as an empire threat and the US is acting way beyond what other countries are doing.

eloisant 6y ago

The US has always be reckless when they want to take control of a foreign company. Other administrations have at least been a little more discreet, but it happened nonetheless. See what happened to Alstom for example. There is a book about that, "The American Trap".

mclightning 6y ago

I hate this "As a European" generalizations as if Europe has an entirely homogeneous spread of governance. Take this for a second; Bulgaria and Denmark is both Europe, or Hungary and Sweden.

fuj 6y ago
To make it worse, the "As a European" is usually followed by a very judgemental or even arrogant statement. As we, the enlightened, don't understand those hillbilly politics. What does the OP not understand? The concern of China controlling key economic and tech areas? OR that a president can block a company from operating in his country? As a European, I might not agree with the decision but I do understand the general concern behind it.
senko 6y ago
With EU being "ever-closer Union" and US being a federal country where states have a lot of local power, it's not as far-fetched as you'd think (although EU is of course nowehere near the level of integration that US is). Also, the same way "America" can mean "the US", it's not strange to see people colloquially refer to the EU countries as "Europe", though both are, technically, not correct.
okamiueru 6y ago
You are absolutely right in that it gives the wrong impression of "everyone thinks the same". That said, I don't think that is the intention, ever, when it's used. There are certain aspects in how things work in the US that are so far disconnected to how it is, in most of Europe, that is baffling. By an large, this difference applies to most of Europe. It is of course an oversimplification. But, here are a few boggling things: Politics (in particular, money in politics that looks like plain bribery, or political and misleading ads everywhere), for profit private prisons, no maternity leave, unpaid internships, healthcare related personal bankruptcies. The list goes on and on, and, since this is a by and large difference to Europe, you tend to see the "As a European" phrase.
- askl56 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. There is nobody in Eastern Europe (or Western Europe if they know enough about politics) who is boggled by money in politics or misleading ads. There are countries in Europe that have had Gulags in the last 50 years, I doubt they are boggled by the idea of a for-profit prison system. As a European who has lived in America and now in SEA, this "as a European" is used by people who generally don't understand the variety of different life experience of people in Europe.

rorykoehler 6y ago

I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.

erklik 6y ago
I mean if that's the case, why not simply make laws to limit foreign companies access to the US market. As far as I know, the US hasn't actually passed any laws, right?
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  Being discretionary can also be reciprocated
  - erklik 6y ago
    I am sorry. I am not sure I understand what you mean? Could you clarify a little?
tom-_- 6y ago
It's easy to forget that China is still a developing nation (~$10k gdp/capita) and protectionist policy is designed to allow developing nations to strengthen domestic industries. If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.

coliveira 6y ago

The US has a "democracy" where the president acts almost like a king. Of course there is a judiciary, but it is slow and doesn't meddle in most decisions affecting international affairs. This kind of behavior wouldn't be acceptable in the UK, for example, where there is a real monarchy. The actual law in the US is to take over other countries that are not labeled as "friends".

garmaine 6y ago

There are many laws, and precedent that allows that.

ageitgey 6y ago

Most countries have significant rules and regulations around foreign-owned corporations. Countries generally think it's important to their national security to prevent widespread foreign ownership of internal resources. But there is a trade-off where you make reciprocal deals with trusted foreign trade partners to facilitate trade and growth. Everything works smoothly when everyone plays by the same rules. China has some of the most draconian restrictions on foreign ownership anywhere yet still gets access to foreign markets. Major US corporations are often forced to set up Chinese-majority-owned subsidiaries to operate in China and must cede huge amounts of control to the Chinese government. Time after time, this results in locals ripping off the technology of the foreign company and then the foreign company being replaced by a local company. Look at the long history of US tech startups failing in China. The point is that whether you think this specific action is right or wrong, it's totally normal tit-for-tat geopolitics. Countries impose tons of restrictions on foreign-owned corporations. You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.

unishark 6y ago
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way. In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.
koonsolo 6y ago
I think you missed my point. I don't really care whether this is the right move or not, and to be honest I don't really know. But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head." > You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me? Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.

Zafira 6y ago

The office of the US President has amassed a significant amount of authority over the years, with the general understanding that power must be used responsibly. The current occupant of the office seems to have little regard for the judicious use of that power. Really, nobody should be disagreeing that the rise of the PRC poses a serious threat to US interests, but wrapping everything in the boogeyman of national security and issuing legally dubious executive orders such as the one banning TikTok and WeChat give critics ammunition to claim we're not really following any sort of process here (i.e. the rule of law). "We need to do something about the PRC" is not a foundation for standing up to the PRC. Praising actions like the current fiasco with TikTok feels like praising a doctor who assaulted 15 people in the ER, vomited on the floor, punched a nurse in the face, but properly stitched up someone who had gotten their lip busted before leaving their shift. Nothing that has been done really sets up a plan for dealing with China even in the immediate future. The sudden forced closure of the Houston consulate lacks public context for the rapid escalation in hostilities and the same goes for the ban on Huawei. I have no doubt that there is something suspicious going on, but it is difficult to see a cohesive vision in all of these thrusts against the PRC and that is terrifying.

walllock 6y ago

As a different European, maybe at least some laws are created based on precedents ... maybe? Maybe there is a law coming, be careful what you wish for.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

To me, this whole TikTok escapade highlights just how dangerous the situation has become with privacy and "tech". From everything I have read and seen, "TikTok" is a gimmick, another frivolous way to kill time, a passing trend. This is not a company that produces anything important for society. Except when we consider that what the app purports to be for its users or advertisers is not its true value/purpose. TikTok is a surveillance vector. We can all pretend that privacy is not a serious issue except amongst tinfoil hats, activists or those tasked with defending the tech industry. However this bizarre story, to me, suggests otherwise. Personal data, access to it, the right to spy on millions of people, carried out by the private sector, is now being fought over by nation states. Younger generations should be up in arms over surveillance. Instead, at least in the US, they want to use these apps and work for these shameful companies. Older generations, who should know better, are willingly using Alexas and the like. Interesting times.

72deluxe 6y ago
I have noticed this too. It is very odd. I suppose everybody walking around with 2 cameras and a microphone in their pocket with widespread high-speed Internet connectivity is too much of a chance to miss for some institutions / agencies!

wdr1 6y ago

> As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What country do you live where this is not true?

hammock 6y ago

>As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. How did you feel about the COVID shutdown? Millions of businesses were just forced by government on very short notice to shut down operation