8 ms·

Can Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Google Chat, Slack, Discord, and others operate freely in China? If the answer to that question is no, the

• kodablah 6y ago
  This is a cost of liberty, as is disagreeable speech, anti-government literature, etc. Opponents of those have long cried "we're getting abused" to stifle such things. One hopes your attitude towards reciprocity stops at software. "we should treat Chinese [NOUN] the exact same way that China treats American [NOUN]" is a scary Mad Lib.
  • eganist 6y ago
    Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example. If China and other governments are intolerant of our content, code, and signals, why should we be tolerant of theirs?
    • samthecoy 6y ago
      This is a misapplication of Popper's tolerance paradox. You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
      • eganist 6y ago
        > You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals". Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
      • zwaps 6y ago
        We-Chat and TikTok are without argument tools of an oppressive regime and therefore constitute intolerance one needs not tolerate, both conceptually and as products. Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader. But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
    • mola 6y ago
      Then why did was offshoring to an intolerant regime was seen as legitimate since the 90s? Only when it started to hurt a few deep american pockets was this talk about intolerant regime became an issue.
      • CydeWeys 6y ago
        Maybe that was a mistake and we shouldn't be doing it anymore? That doesn't justify not addressing the issue going forward.
    • sbmthakur 6y ago
      > Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example. The same can be applied to software and algorithms. These cannot be allowed to perpetuate evil practices in the name of liberty.[1] I don't see a problem when apps doing that get banned. Though I do understand that people will differ on how to do that. 1. https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/
  • refurb 6y ago
    This is economic liberty, not freedom of speech. Are you saying if the US puts a tariff on aluminum from Canada we’re not holding ourselves up to our ideals of freedom?
    • Klinky 6y ago
      I think we should spell out our trade policies and not have them be at the whim of the executive branch to do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, while trying to extort a cut of the profits.
  • jariel 6y ago
    No, it's not at all. Also - WeChat is a legit threat even outside the bounds of security. Game Theory: 'True Free Trade' - everyone gets 10 points 'All Borders Closed' - everyone gets 0 points 'One side opens, one side closed' - the closed side gets 20 points, the open side 5 Somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma. Finally - there is hardly an argument to be made with 'open' or 'freedom' on platforms that are completely controlled, censored, used as tools of suppression and authoritarianism.
• icameron 6y ago
  Can anything operate freely in China? (No) it shouldn’t be the aspiration of the US to emulate an authoritarian state.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    The entire democratic world should take this exact same approach toward China. Democratic nations have free markets and free trade agreements. If China wants to be an isolationist with their own internal economy and their own internal corporations, that is fine. But then they should not also be able to participate in global trade with other free market economies. We're not emulating China, we're reciprocating their behavior exclusively with regard to China. We don't ban German, Japanese, Korean, or companies from other nations from operating in the US, do we? No.
    • angio 6y ago
      China is not banning foreign companies from operating in China, in fact for many it's their second or third biggest market.
      • drchopchop 6y ago
        Sure, Nike can sell them shoes, but anything which involves free expression is certainly not welcome. So, in practice, many technology and social media companies are effectively banned.
      • bananabreakfast 6y ago
        Yes, they are? Facebook, google, youtube, uber, twitter, goddamn wikipedia etc...
        • DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
          Uber is not banned from China. They had a large business in China, but they faced strong competition from Didi. They ended up selling their operations to Didi in exchange for a stake in the Didi. The companies that are banned in China are the companies that do not agree to censor political content. That's where you get Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. not being able to operate in China. Western companies have a massive presence in China - far greater than the presence that Chinese companies have in the West. The top three auto brands in China are Volkswagen, Honda and Toyota. China is the world's 2nd largest aviation market, and Boeing and Airbus dominate the Chinese market. American restaurants, such as Starbucks, McDonald's and KFC, are everywhere in China. Chinese malls are filled with American, European and Japanese brands. Up until the trade war began, most Chinese people strongly preferred foreign brands like Apple - though I think this is changing, due to the hounding of companies like Huawei and TikTok by the US government. The strange thing is that most Westerners believe that China shuts out foreign companies, and it's difficult to even begin to express just how wrong that impression is. China's development was driven by foreign capital - to a large extent meaning foreign companies entering China either to manufacture there or to sell to Chinese consumers. As a result, foreign companies have a huge presence in China.
• leptoniscool 6y ago
  US is supposed to be a free society that does not need to use censorship
  • vmception 6y ago
    Maybe someone lied to you.
    • fluffernutter 6y ago
      Maybe you like things simple.
  • bananabreakfast 6y ago
    It's not censorship. Dealing with a bad actor by excluding them is not "silencing" them.
• badwolf 6y ago
  So we just say now that "The American Way" and our system of government and laws isn't good, and we should just do what China does? I don't like that idea very much. We're supposed to be above that.
  • vmception 6y ago
    Well we clearly aren’t, there is no history to suggest that we are, and whoever told you otherwise lied to you through their teeth or was just as gullible.
    • bananabreakfast 6y ago
      That fact you are even able to write this is proof enough of the falsehood of your statement.
      • vmception 6y ago
        “But at least we can talk about it, therefore we can deflect any issue with our comfortable imagination of consequence free speech instead of actually pointing out the egregious history of oppression, extrajudicial execution, judicial execution, periodic and ongoing forced sterilization, cultural genocide, actual genocide, censorship, concentrated power in archaic ways, wait which country are we talking about? but we can talk about it so we are better by a standard that nobody else cares about except us!” low bar
• jhedwards 6y ago
  Why should we emulate the policies of another country if we agree that those policies are wrong and/or harmful? That seems like the exact opposite of what we should do: lead by example by showing how a society without such restriction is better off.
  • toomuchtodo 6y ago
    We don’t all agree they’re harmful.
    • scrollaway 6y ago
      You can't both say "china is wrong in its policies so it's eye for an eye" AND "it's a good policy". What you're saying there in this reply is essentially that every country should just close itself off to the rest of the world and operate on its own technologically. I don't believe this is a point of you held by the majority, not even would I believe you if you told me you hold this view (since I've seen your posts before and I don't think this is something you think).
      • toomuchtodo 6y ago
        I hold the view that some nationalistic policies are in the best interest of the United States, and I communicate this in writing to policy makers I interface with.
        • scrollaway 6y ago
          In other words, "do as I say, not as I do". You know that's the political equivalent of saying "I hold the view that it's good that other people have to give me stuff and I don't have to give anything back"?
          • toomuchtodo 6y ago
            Most negotiations in life are obtaining as much of what you desire with providing as little in return possible. If you don't have your own interests at heart, no one else will. How you approach geopolitical interactions with each country is going to vary, but that's the gist. With that said, I believe we have differing belief systems, and nothing productive will come from continuing the discussion. I expressed my viewpoint to demonstrate it exists (which is a contrarian view in the HN echo chamber). EDIT: (throttled by HN, can't reply to below comment) > what are you doing regularly posting (in dissent) in a community that, in your own words, holds a globally contrarian view to yours? I enjoy the interactions and discussions. I'm not winning hearts and minds but I don't pretend it matters.
• kanox 6y ago
  Freedom of speech and rule of law is not conditioned on reciprocity.
• AniseAbyss 6y ago
  If American corporations want to do business in China they will have to do business with WeChat.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• mola 6y ago
  Do you think the trade wars trump administration opened with Europe mexico and canada are in the benefit of free trade, or US supremacy? Before you have a moral right to invoke reciprocity you should actually abide by that principle. This administration openly say it's policy is all about protectionism so how can you actually attribute free trade reciprocity to these actions?
  • stjohnswarts 6y ago
    No but a clock can be right two times in a day. I don't have a problem with him calling out blocking of data harvesting on American citizens.
• fluffernutter 6y ago
  That question is a setup. A leading question. A question with intent. This is why you ask it, so you can reply the way you do when you answer it for us. Who cares if any of those companies can operate in China freely? It's really their problem, not ours here on the forum to discuss on a post that removes our options and choices. What is important to discuss is whether or not portions of the US Government are acting illegally in blocking or interfering with freedom of action and speech BY INDIVIDUALS. Fuck the companies. They caused this problem. Do I not have a right to buy a product and use it? Do I not have a right to use an application with which I best communicate with the people who are important to me? Is it not the US Government's job to oversee the communications coming in from outside our borders and protect us from the harm that may be leveled against us by a nation state's transmissions? Why is it the state insists on making illogical choices that place us in a double bind? Why is it that our actions are now being very clearly limited? Why is it that we continue to allow our liberties to be removed, one sliver at a time, because of big business greed?
  • vorpalhex 6y ago
    Why is it Discord/Facebook are "just companies who can sort it out" but TikTok and WeChat are magically individuals? Do Discord and Facebook not transact with individuals?
  • evancox100 6y ago
    > Do I not have a right to buy a product ad use it? Clearly, Western society has decided for some time you do not have this right. Numerous products are banned, sometimes for good reasons, other times purely for the benefit of one private actor(s) over another. Generally we use a "democratic", legislative, rule-of-law based process to decide these issues, for all it's numerous flaws. One of the problems in this instance is the capriciousness of the decision, though FWIW it does seem at least loosely based in "national security" powers delegated to the president by Congress. There will always be such bans on specific commerce. We need a return to a functioning legislative branch, responsive to the needs of the people.
• rileymat2 6y ago
  > The US should only engage with foreign governments that respect free trade. It may be a bit naive on my part, but in theory restricting free trade on this basis just makes us poorer. As long as two parties are trading, they both get benefits.
  • perennate 6y ago
    After the U.S. imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum, Canada responded with tariffs on U.S. goods [1]. A reciprocal retaliation makes sense to discourage the other side from continuing to participate in these market practices. If reciprocal retaliation to China's arbitrary bans on US and European Internet service companies is bad, then so is reciprocal retaliation to US-imposed tariffs; but that fails to appropriately discourage the US from imposing more tariffs, and leads to greater restrictions on free trade, not less. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/canada-to-impose-tariffs-on-2point7-billion-in-us-goods-after-trump-reignites-trade-feud.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/canada-to-impose-tariffs-on-...
    • stjohnswarts 6y ago
      Which European internet service companies has the Trump administration banned?
      • perennate 6y ago
        I don't know, you tell me? I didn't say anything about Trump administration banning European internet service companies.
• Aunche 6y ago
  I don't have an issue with reciprocity. I have an issue with using "security" as an excuse to abuse executive power. The same thing was done with counterterrorism.
• justicezyx 6y ago
  Sure, then you can just say that we ban them because they did not open market. Use this "The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated the means and motives to use these apps to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S. " I haven't seen a more blatant lie in the US history known to myself...
• Cookingboy 6y ago
  >Can Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Google Chat, Slack, Discord, and others operate freely in China? Actually yes, as long as they adhere to Chinese data laws. That's why iMessage, FaceTime, Skype, etc are all able to operate freely in China. All those laws apply to Chinese companies too. What American data law can TikTok/WeChat adhere to to operate here? Do those laws apply to American companies as well?
• hw 6y ago
  A little late here. I don't think having TikTok/WeChat banned is a big issue for China unfortunately. Let's say this escalates and Apple, Nike, Starbucks etc are all banned from China in 'reciprocity', and the US starts banning all imports from China and requiring all products to be sourced from other countries. I'm curious as to who would be the bigger loser. It would be completely different if the US came together with the EU, UK, Canada and South America in combating China, but unfortunately the US has decided to instead go after those countries as well.
• edwinyzh 6y ago
  No, there is a BIG difference - Google, Facebook and others can operate in China if they comply with local laws; Tell me which U.S. laws wechat and TikTok violate?
• namelosw 6y ago
  Well, the problem is then ironically the US would become another China. If everybody is practicing this 'reciprocity' thing, everybody would have their own GFW, censorship, and propaganda machine at the end of the day.