5 ms·

Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei

by badRNG 6y ago

Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict security-related merits of banning TikTok, and I am willing to concede all of them, however this will, either way, establish a precedent of an app's coverage by 1st amendment free speech protections, and of what standards the government needs to do to ban an app, whether it be a Chinese social media app or an end-to-end encrypted messaging app. [2] If the standard is simply to claim that it's "a national security threat" without requiring any further evidence (besides the fact that it's Chinese) then that might be cause for concern. [1] https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tiktok-logs-logs-logs-e93e8162647a https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tiktok-logs-logs-logs-e93e81626... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/tiktok-ban-seed-genuine-security-concern-wrapped-thick-layer-censorship https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/tiktok-ban-seed-genuin...

StreamBright 6y ago
>> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. In the USA. China has done is many times.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  It looks like we should be expecting China to export more of its policies to the US ?
  - apta 6y ago
    Slippery slope fallacy.
- badRNG 6y ago
  Yes, and the concerns about 1st Amendment precedence weren't referring to China either. I imagine China disallows end-to-end encrypted messaging apps as well, which is largely the basis of my concern.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Not sure why you are bringing up the 1st Amendment. Operating a social network app is not a protected form of free speech.
    - badRNG 6y ago
      My concerns are largely over the precedent that might allow banning end-to-end encrypted apps over "national security," but there is an argument to be made on 1st Amendment grounds. There are two 1A considerations here: whether an "app" is speech, and the speech of TikTok's users. If courts decide that TikTok is a "public forum," then there would be precedence to prevent the privation of this public forum in the interests of free speech. [1] On the other consideration, one of the landmark cases regarding software, Bernstein v. Department of Justice, ruled that code is speech, and this directly lead to the end of export control on encryption. [2] This has been further affirmed by a ruling in favor of the video game industry against a law banning the sale of games to minors in CA. [3] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 [2] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html
      - nazgulsenpai 6y ago
        This should be a top-level post. It saddens me the sheer number of people who accept the TikTok banning blindly because "national security" (not here so much but people I've talked to at work/other forums). This vague terminology could be adapted to encompass any communication that might be a threat to "national security" including encryption. Once the precedent is set it will be damn near impossible to go back; just look at the Patriot Act.
threeseed 6y ago
> banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented No it's not. China has banned most Western apps in the interests of national security. And that article you listed on analysing TikTok is hilariously incompetent. Didn't think to investigate multiplexing data with the video stream ?
- badRNG 6y ago
  >No it's not. China has banned most Western apps in the interests of national security. Chinese law doesn't carry a legal precedence in the US court system. My concerns regarding free speech and the precedence for banning end-to-end encrypted apps remain in tact. Additionally, China bans end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, which bolsters my concerns regarding precedence. >And that article you listed on analysing TikTok is hilariously incompetent. Didn't think to investigate multiplexing data With the video stream ? Even if I concede that no one has proven the apps safety, it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the administration to demonstrate that the app behaves in uniquely dangerous ways, not on security researchers to prove that it doesn't.
- Draiken 6y ago
  I think OP means: > is largely unprecedented "in the US". As others stated, if the US wants to start using China as a country to base its precedents on, that's even more concerning in my view.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Countries blocking companies from operating on national security grounds is hardly new in the US or anywhere really. It might be the first US mobile app however I will grant you that.
    - ryosuke 6y ago
      I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not legitimate for a country to ban a company on national security grounds, but that this is stretching the definition of what constitutes a national security threat. Which companies currently banned in the US would you say are comparable to TikTok in terms of the threat they could potentially pose?
angryold 6y ago
In the grand scheme of things, apps as we know them are a product of the 2000s, right? Apps are unprecedented as well by that logic, which makes that seem less significant. I mean we could also say that we might simply disagree with China politically enough to justify such an action (like the US has done against Cuba, Sudan or Iran). I do agree with you and think though the fact that it's targeting a single company is a bit odd (like other commenters above has also said - why TikTok and not just an industry or sector from a country) and raises some concern from me as well.
StavrosK 6y ago
Well, "apps" themselves are relatively new, so it makes sense there's no precedent.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. What kind of myopic fucking nonsense is this? Hsvd you not even heard of the Cold War?
- ryosuke 6y ago
  I didn't know we had apps back in the days of the Cold War.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Don't be naive, you know what I'm talking about. Do you think the USA and it's allies allowed Soviet companies to run amok during the Cold War? What we're watching unfold now is way more complicated, and will be way more protracted, than the Cold War was.
    - dash2 6y ago
      Interesting. Which Soviet company (did the USSR even have such things?) got banned from doing business in the US?
- Igelau 6y ago
  Unless they got banned so hard that they were erased from history and memory, mobile phone apps were not a thing during the Cold War.
ArchD 6y ago
Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current arrangement is assymetric. If TikTok were made in India, then you would have a good point.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Are you saying that China gets to ban free speech but the US doesn't? The US has the 1st Amendment. China doesn't (but should). If we're just talking about investment, then things are not as asymmetric as you claim. Chinese investment in the US has historically been tiny compared to US investment in China. That only began to change a few years ago, as China began to invest abroad, but the US' protectionist policies have now essentially ended Chinese investment in the US.
- badRNG 6y ago
  >Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Yes I am. My concerns center the precedent of banning software. If banning software to further the interests of national security is established as a precedent, it is reasonable to assume this will be weaponized against end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like Signal. This would erode a strong, hard fought for precedent that code is speech. The Bernstein v. Department of Justice decision ended Export Control of encryption on the basis of software as speech. [1] Courts affirmed this right again in a ruling against a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, as it infringed on the speech of video game companies. [2] Since you brought up China's policies, they also happen to ban end-to-end encrypted apps as there is a strong precedent for doing so in the interests of national security. [3] These simply aren't policies worth emulating. [1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-blocked.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-b...
mmmmmbop 6y ago
> Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. Every legal action was unprecedented at some point, until a precedent was set. That alone is not a strong argument against the TikTok ban being just. In addition to that, note that the EFF post you linked to mentions Lawfare's primer [1] which explains the legal case for the divesting order. In short, Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-need-explain-things-your-teenager#block-system-main:~:text=Can%20the%20executive%20branch%20force%20ByteDance,better%20known%20by%20its%20acronym%20CFIUS https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-n....
- mcherm 6y ago
  > Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority. However, Congress cannot delegate a power they do not have. The US Constitution specifically states that: > No Bill of Attainder [law to punish a particular person or company, rather than those who meet certain categories] [...] shall be passed. > No person [that includes corporations] shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law These combine to limit the degree to which Congress can decide to just punish a certain company. For instance, they can certainly pass a law saying that any company that threatens national security must be sold or cease doing business. But I believe under current legal precedents Congress could NOT pass a law saying that TikTok must be sold (for no reason... just because Congress doesn't like it) or that all companies that are owned by Democrats must be sold. Now, if TikTok actually threatens national security, then no one questions whether the President has the authority to order it sold. But "due process" requires that the decision of whether it threatens national security be made on the basis of some reasoning. They don't have to necessarily be RIGHT about whether it threatens national security, but they do at least have to have some reason for believing that it does. ByteDance claims that the decision was completely arbitrary and based on nothing more than "the company is based in China". If that is true, then this is reminiscent of the Japanese internment camps in WWII -- nothing but plain racism on the part of the government. If that is NOT true, and TikTok threatens national security (not just Donald Trump's ego), then of course it should be sold. I look forward to finding out the truth of the matter.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented Given “apps” have been around in a significant way since only 2008 [1], this is equivalent to saying Obama didn’t ban any apps in the name of national security. Banning foreign companies in the name of national security is well precedented and Congressionally authorised. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)
- kodablah 6y ago
  Replace "apps" with "software" or "text/video content" or whatever you want to make it clearer the concerns here. We shouldn't cheer the banning of any of this kind of software. We should denounce the excuse of national security concerns lest the next software or content ban you might regret the executive precedent given.
WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
I think there is a question to be asked if Constitutional rights apply to foreign entities like companies that are actively working against the US. At the level of nation states, one has to take care that they are holding themselves to their own standard so tightly that other countries who don't do the same take advantage of it. There isn't any greater power to enforce justice and as such many concepts of fairness don't work the same. Otherwise you end up with companies that will oppose the US because it doesn't ruin their business but which will cave to other countries because it will. An "every body else is doing it" argument works a bit differently when there is no higher power to appeal to.
dalbasal 6y ago
I agree. Moreover, I think the whole thing kind of represents an adoption of the Chinese position. Since Deng ("let in fresh air, but keep out the flies"), China's attitude has been to liberalize economically but reject political rights. Political rights like speech, affiliation, and such were seen as dangerous. Media, especially, was seen as something highly dangerous. Anything with potential to cause another tianmen is a "national security interest." They did not want what happened to the USSR to happen in the PRC. The US is moving closer to this position. Espionage concerns may be a catalyst, but if you listen to legislators (eg congressional grillings) it's clear that content is their concern. Are you giving my opponent more eyeballs than me? Are you promoting left/right wing content? Why is this protest more prominent than that one? The reality of modern politics is that online media is as important as CNN. Murdoch matters less than Zuck now. Politicians are highly sensitive to this. There still hasn't been a politically (in the US) important media company that wasn't western. Tiktok has the potential to become one. US legislators seem as likely to allow a chinese CNN to succeed in the US and China is to allow CNN to succeed in China.
- solstice 6y ago
  The Deng quote is slightly different: "If you open the window for fresh air, you have to expect some flies to blow in." ("打开窗户，新鲜空气会进来，苍蝇也会飞进来。") What you describe is true though, especially since 89 (TAM, collapse of soviet union)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mas3god 6y ago
> unjustified escalation Huh
cryptica 6y ago
In 2008, the government bailed out big banks. In 2020, the government bailed out big corporations. Nobody gives a shit about precedents and principles anymore. Why should anyone give a shit about TikTok? Shut them down, lock them up! Nothing the government can do today is hypocritical, nothing compared to what they've already done! I think the government should lock them up, simply because that would show elites the nonsensical reality which everyone else is subjected to! There are no principles. Whoever has the money and the most political connections can do whatever they want and everyone else can shut the hell up. It's about time the elite neoliberals actually participated in their own system on a 'level playing field' (as in, the rigged-game field which everyone else is forced to play on)... There is no free market, hasn't been one for over a decade. The government should ban TikTok because that would send a powerful message to technocratic neoliberals; let them know what unrestrained capitalism is really about. Our corporate masters think that employees should bow down to them, but they will not bow down to their own masters (Trump). It's about time they find out what happens when you don't bow down to your master. Welcome to neoliberal capitalism.

by badRNG 6y ago

StreamBright 6y ago

>> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. In the USA. China has done is many times.

cblconfederate 6y ago
It looks like we should be expecting China to export more of its policies to the US ?
- apta 6y ago
  Slippery slope fallacy.
badRNG 6y ago
Yes, and the concerns about 1st Amendment precedence weren't referring to China either. I imagine China disallows end-to-end encrypted messaging apps as well, which is largely the basis of my concern.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Not sure why you are bringing up the 1st Amendment. Operating a social network app is not a protected form of free speech.
  - badRNG 6y ago
    My concerns are largely over the precedent that might allow banning end-to-end encrypted apps over "national security," but there is an argument to be made on 1st Amendment grounds. There are two 1A considerations here: whether an "app" is speech, and the speech of TikTok's users. If courts decide that TikTok is a "public forum," then there would be precedence to prevent the privation of this public forum in the interests of free speech. [1] On the other consideration, one of the landmark cases regarding software, Bernstein v. Department of Justice, ruled that code is speech, and this directly lead to the end of export control on encryption. [2] This has been further affirmed by a ruling in favor of the video game industry against a law banning the sale of games to minors in CA. [3] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 [2] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html
    - nazgulsenpai 6y ago
      This should be a top-level post. It saddens me the sheer number of people who accept the TikTok banning blindly because "national security" (not here so much but people I've talked to at work/other forums). This vague terminology could be adapted to encompass any communication that might be a threat to "national security" including encryption. Once the precedent is set it will be damn near impossible to go back; just look at the Patriot Act.

threeseed 6y ago

> banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented No it's not. China has banned most Western apps in the interests of national security. And that article you listed on analysing TikTok is hilariously incompetent. Didn't think to investigate multiplexing data with the video stream ?

badRNG 6y ago
>No it's not. China has banned most Western apps in the interests of national security. Chinese law doesn't carry a legal precedence in the US court system. My concerns regarding free speech and the precedence for banning end-to-end encrypted apps remain in tact. Additionally, China bans end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, which bolsters my concerns regarding precedence. >And that article you listed on analysing TikTok is hilariously incompetent. Didn't think to investigate multiplexing data With the video stream ? Even if I concede that no one has proven the apps safety, it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the administration to demonstrate that the app behaves in uniquely dangerous ways, not on security researchers to prove that it doesn't.
Draiken 6y ago
I think OP means: > is largely unprecedented "in the US". As others stated, if the US wants to start using China as a country to base its precedents on, that's even more concerning in my view.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Countries blocking companies from operating on national security grounds is hardly new in the US or anywhere really. It might be the first US mobile app however I will grant you that.
  - ryosuke 6y ago
    I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not legitimate for a country to ban a company on national security grounds, but that this is stretching the definition of what constitutes a national security threat. Which companies currently banned in the US would you say are comparable to TikTok in terms of the threat they could potentially pose?

angryold 6y ago

In the grand scheme of things, apps as we know them are a product of the 2000s, right? Apps are unprecedented as well by that logic, which makes that seem less significant. I mean we could also say that we might simply disagree with China politically enough to justify such an action (like the US has done against Cuba, Sudan or Iran). I do agree with you and think though the fact that it's targeting a single company is a bit odd (like other commenters above has also said - why TikTok and not just an industry or sector from a country) and raises some concern from me as well.

StavrosK 6y ago

Well, "apps" themselves are relatively new, so it makes sense there's no precedent.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. What kind of myopic fucking nonsense is this? Hsvd you not even heard of the Cold War?

ryosuke 6y ago
I didn't know we had apps back in the days of the Cold War.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Don't be naive, you know what I'm talking about. Do you think the USA and it's allies allowed Soviet companies to run amok during the Cold War? What we're watching unfold now is way more complicated, and will be way more protracted, than the Cold War was.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Interesting. Which Soviet company (did the USSR even have such things?) got banned from doing business in the US?
Igelau 6y ago
Unless they got banned so hard that they were erased from history and memory, mobile phone apps were not a thing during the Cold War.

ArchD 6y ago

Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current arrangement is assymetric. If TikTok were made in India, then you would have a good point.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Are you saying that China gets to ban free speech but the US doesn't? The US has the 1st Amendment. China doesn't (but should). If we're just talking about investment, then things are not as asymmetric as you claim. Chinese investment in the US has historically been tiny compared to US investment in China. That only began to change a few years ago, as China began to invest abroad, but the US' protectionist policies have now essentially ended Chinese investment in the US.
badRNG 6y ago
>Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Yes I am. My concerns center the precedent of banning software. If banning software to further the interests of national security is established as a precedent, it is reasonable to assume this will be weaponized against end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like Signal. This would erode a strong, hard fought for precedent that code is speech. The Bernstein v. Department of Justice decision ended Export Control of encryption on the basis of software as speech. [1] Courts affirmed this right again in a ruling against a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, as it infringed on the speech of video game companies. [2] Since you brought up China's policies, they also happen to ban end-to-end encrypted apps as there is a strong precedent for doing so in the interests of national security. [3] These simply aren't policies worth emulating. [1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-blocked.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-b...

mmmmmbop 6y ago

> Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. Every legal action was unprecedented at some point, until a precedent was set. That alone is not a strong argument against the TikTok ban being just. In addition to that, note that the EFF post you linked to mentions Lawfare's primer [1] which explains the legal case for the divesting order. In short, Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-need-explain-things-your-teenager#block-system-main:~:text=Can%20the%20executive%20branch%20force%20ByteDance,better%20known%20by%20its%20acronym%20CFIUS https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-n....

mcherm 6y ago
> Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority. However, Congress cannot delegate a power they do not have. The US Constitution specifically states that: > No Bill of Attainder [law to punish a particular person or company, rather than those who meet certain categories] [...] shall be passed. > No person [that includes corporations] shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law These combine to limit the degree to which Congress can decide to just punish a certain company. For instance, they can certainly pass a law saying that any company that threatens national security must be sold or cease doing business. But I believe under current legal precedents Congress could NOT pass a law saying that TikTok must be sold (for no reason... just because Congress doesn't like it) or that all companies that are owned by Democrats must be sold. Now, if TikTok actually threatens national security, then no one questions whether the President has the authority to order it sold. But "due process" requires that the decision of whether it threatens national security be made on the basis of some reasoning. They don't have to necessarily be RIGHT about whether it threatens national security, but they do at least have to have some reason for believing that it does. ByteDance claims that the decision was completely arbitrary and based on nothing more than "the company is based in China". If that is true, then this is reminiscent of the Japanese internment camps in WWII -- nothing but plain racism on the part of the government. If that is NOT true, and TikTok threatens national security (not just Donald Trump's ego), then of course it should be sold. I look forward to finding out the truth of the matter.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented Given “apps” have been around in a significant way since only 2008 [1], this is equivalent to saying Obama didn’t ban any apps in the name of national security. Banning foreign companies in the name of national security is well precedented and Congressionally authorised. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)

kodablah 6y ago
Replace "apps" with "software" or "text/video content" or whatever you want to make it clearer the concerns here. We shouldn't cheer the banning of any of this kind of software. We should denounce the excuse of national security concerns lest the next software or content ban you might regret the executive precedent given.

WindyLakeReturn 6y ago

I think there is a question to be asked if Constitutional rights apply to foreign entities like companies that are actively working against the US. At the level of nation states, one has to take care that they are holding themselves to their own standard so tightly that other countries who don't do the same take advantage of it. There isn't any greater power to enforce justice and as such many concepts of fairness don't work the same. Otherwise you end up with companies that will oppose the US because it doesn't ruin their business but which will cave to other countries because it will. An "every body else is doing it" argument works a bit differently when there is no higher power to appeal to.

dalbasal 6y ago

I agree. Moreover, I think the whole thing kind of represents an adoption of the Chinese position. Since Deng ("let in fresh air, but keep out the flies"), China's attitude has been to liberalize economically but reject political rights. Political rights like speech, affiliation, and such were seen as dangerous. Media, especially, was seen as something highly dangerous. Anything with potential to cause another tianmen is a "national security interest." They did not want what happened to the USSR to happen in the PRC. The US is moving closer to this position. Espionage concerns may be a catalyst, but if you listen to legislators (eg congressional grillings) it's clear that content is their concern. Are you giving my opponent more eyeballs than me? Are you promoting left/right wing content? Why is this protest more prominent than that one? The reality of modern politics is that online media is as important as CNN. Murdoch matters less than Zuck now. Politicians are highly sensitive to this. There still hasn't been a politically (in the US) important media company that wasn't western. Tiktok has the potential to become one. US legislators seem as likely to allow a chinese CNN to succeed in the US and China is to allow CNN to succeed in China.

solstice 6y ago
The Deng quote is slightly different: "If you open the window for fresh air, you have to expect some flies to blow in." ("打开窗户，新鲜空气会进来，苍蝇也会飞进来。") What you describe is true though, especially since 89 (TAM, collapse of soviet union)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mas3god 6y ago

> unjustified escalation Huh

cryptica 6y ago

In 2008, the government bailed out big banks. In 2020, the government bailed out big corporations. Nobody gives a shit about precedents and principles anymore. Why should anyone give a shit about TikTok? Shut them down, lock them up! Nothing the government can do today is hypocritical, nothing compared to what they've already done! I think the government should lock them up, simply because that would show elites the nonsensical reality which everyone else is subjected to! There are no principles. Whoever has the money and the most political connections can do whatever they want and everyone else can shut the hell up. It's about time the elite neoliberals actually participated in their own system on a 'level playing field' (as in, the rigged-game field which everyone else is forced to play on)... There is no free market, hasn't been one for over a decade. The government should ban TikTok because that would send a powerful message to technocratic neoliberals; let them know what unrestrained capitalism is really about. Our corporate masters think that employees should bow down to them, but they will not bow down to their own masters (Trump). It's about time they find out what happens when you don't bow down to your master. Welcome to neoliberal capitalism.