4 ms·

The counter-argument is that China's protectionism hasn't hurt them. They have several major brands doing just fine, reaching into plenty of other countries tha

The counter-argument is that China's protectionism hasn't hurt them. They have several major brands doing just fine, reaching into plenty of other countries that haven't blocked them. Also it's not as if most other countries have domestic alternatives that can easily take the place of the major US companies.

mrtksn 6y ago
>Also it's not as if most other countries have domestic alternatives that can easily take the place of the major US corps. It doesn't take huge technical skills that exist only in SV to build alternatives to US internet companies. The reason why China and Russia have their own alternatives but the EU and UK don't is because they let US steamroll into their markets. FB and other US companies were early or had better funding and got the lead, network effect kicked in and they dominated. When a country blocks you off, your funding and network effect is no more. In other words, the moat of the US internet companies is not their tech but their network and that network can be made anaemic by countries who want to have their local alternatives, as seen with Russia and China. Even in places where that tech expertise doesn't exists someone will build white label solutions and sell them.
- manigandham 6y ago
  > "The reason why China and Russia have their own alternatives but the EU and UK don't is because they let US steamroll into their markets." Why do you say "steamroll"? They came in because they were allowed in. Are you now making the case that protectionism is good and EU/UK should prefer their own while blocking foreign companies? If it was that easy then why wouldn't they just do it to encourage domestic activity?
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    It's a description of what happened. If you are curious about my opinion, I would prefer having a global market with safeguards like the GDPR in place. I am not a fan of the direction where the would is headed and I am not looking forward for the partitioned internet in an isolationist world. It's also disheartening losing the USA as a force of ideals for social and economic freedoms, despite its faults it was a huge enabler for people with ambitions in less free countries.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Why would the entire world be affected? It's the US applying specific protections against China, which has already isolated itself. Nothing changes for the rest of the world.
      - mrtksn 6y ago
        The world has the exactly the same concerns towards the USA based companies. What changes is that from now on it is acceptable to block apps and websites but blocking them was considered a free speech issue and Up until now blocking apps and websites was something that that only dictators would do, not anymore.
        manigandham 6y ago
        Blocking foreign companies is not a free speech issue. Also free speech isn't a law, and the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with some social network provided by a private foreign corporation that must still follow US regulations to operate here. The rest of the world is not going to change just because we start to treat China the same way they treat everyone else. Perhaps you should read up on how India and other countries are also defending against China.
        mrtksn 6y ago
        You understand that not everyone is US citizen, right? In fact, only about %5 of the world is, therefore %95 of the world is not bound by amendments in the US constitution and by foreign corporation they mean US corporations. How do you think US corporations were able to grow to global scale without registering legal entities in the %95 of the world? Because due to the US pressure and advocacy for free speech not letting Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others to operate was considered a matter of free speech in the pro western world. Russia and China did not played that game and had homegrown versions. US is not going to win China and is about to lose the non-US wester countrieds by blocking TikTok. After the TikTok case no political activist will have credibility when the next dictator or would be dictator blocks Twitter. In places like UK/EU where local companies aspire to compete with the US ones you can expect much more hostile environment for the next US startup because no longer the issue would be a matter of freedom but national security.
- jariel 6y ago
  That's true for FB but not so much for Amazon, MS, Google etc..
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Once you get out of the SV tech industry bubble it's painfully clear that pretty much every other industry has taken a hit thanks to Chinese IP theft. Sure, the American people probably receive a net benefit from being able to buy Harbor Freight tools for razor thin margins but when you start talking industries like ship yards and other more specialized "higher up the industrial food chain" type stuff it becomes harder to justify as a net positive.

mrtksn 6y ago

>Also it's not as if most other countries have domestic alternatives that can easily take the place of the major US corps. It doesn't take huge technical skills that exist only in SV to build alternatives to US internet companies. The reason why China and Russia have their own alternatives but the EU and UK don't is because they let US steamroll into their markets. FB and other US companies were early or had better funding and got the lead, network effect kicked in and they dominated. When a country blocks you off, your funding and network effect is no more. In other words, the moat of the US internet companies is not their tech but their network and that network can be made anaemic by countries who want to have their local alternatives, as seen with Russia and China. Even in places where that tech expertise doesn't exists someone will build white label solutions and sell them.

manigandham 6y ago
> "The reason why China and Russia have their own alternatives but the EU and UK don't is because they let US steamroll into their markets." Why do you say "steamroll"? They came in because they were allowed in. Are you now making the case that protectionism is good and EU/UK should prefer their own while blocking foreign companies? If it was that easy then why wouldn't they just do it to encourage domestic activity?
- mrtksn 6y ago
  It's a description of what happened. If you are curious about my opinion, I would prefer having a global market with safeguards like the GDPR in place. I am not a fan of the direction where the would is headed and I am not looking forward for the partitioned internet in an isolationist world. It's also disheartening losing the USA as a force of ideals for social and economic freedoms, despite its faults it was a huge enabler for people with ambitions in less free countries.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Why would the entire world be affected? It's the US applying specific protections against China, which has already isolated itself. Nothing changes for the rest of the world.
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      The world has the exactly the same concerns towards the USA based companies. What changes is that from now on it is acceptable to block apps and websites but blocking them was considered a free speech issue and Up until now blocking apps and websites was something that that only dictators would do, not anymore.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Blocking foreign companies is not a free speech issue. Also free speech isn't a law, and the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with some social network provided by a private foreign corporation that must still follow US regulations to operate here. The rest of the world is not going to change just because we start to treat China the same way they treat everyone else. Perhaps you should read up on how India and other countries are also defending against China.
        mrtksn 6y ago
        You understand that not everyone is US citizen, right? In fact, only about %5 of the world is, therefore %95 of the world is not bound by amendments in the US constitution and by foreign corporation they mean US corporations. How do you think US corporations were able to grow to global scale without registering legal entities in the %95 of the world? Because due to the US pressure and advocacy for free speech not letting Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others to operate was considered a matter of free speech in the pro western world. Russia and China did not played that game and had homegrown versions. US is not going to win China and is about to lose the non-US wester countrieds by blocking TikTok. After the TikTok case no political activist will have credibility when the next dictator or would be dictator blocks Twitter. In places like UK/EU where local companies aspire to compete with the US ones you can expect much more hostile environment for the next US startup because no longer the issue would be a matter of freedom but national security.
jariel 6y ago
That's true for FB but not so much for Amazon, MS, Google etc..

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Once you get out of the SV tech industry bubble it's painfully clear that pretty much every other industry has taken a hit thanks to Chinese IP theft. Sure, the American people probably receive a net benefit from being able to buy Harbor Freight tools for razor thin margins but when you start talking industries like ship yards and other more specialized "higher up the industrial food chain" type stuff it becomes harder to justify as a net positive.