5 ms·

Yet every time this is posted the default response is that China has done worse to US companies, so It's only fair! How do you reply to that? (not asking rhetor

Yet every time this is posted the default response is that China has done worse to US companies, so It's only fair! How do you reply to that? (not asking rhetorically)

komali2 6y ago
Being Bad is Bad
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dirtyid 6y ago
US media companies are free to operate in China, provided they follow Chinese media laws that applies to other domestic platforms. TikTok operates in US under US laws, that's technically fair and reciprocal. If people mean reciprocal in spirit, like joint venture, then TikTok partnering with Oracle and storing data in US server is reciprocal in spirit. You can apply this reciprocal state of exception for all Chinese companies in US, provided JV partners reciprocate in perks (i.e. in China JVs provide massive land and other subsidies). You can even legislate tech transfers for TikTok's algorithm. And for the purpose of trade and commercial entities operating to make a profit that's sufficient. But I surmise the crux of these bad-faith reciprocal arguments is that US should be able to impose its values on foreign markets, and US companies should be able operate in those markets to spread US values like how Chinese platforms operating under US values can shape US opinions. That's valid, but an that's a conversation well past trade fairness which TikTok has already met. But this isn't about trade fairness, this & Clean Network is about Chinese containment and US hegemony. And that's also valid. China's going to do what they do, the question people here needs to ask is should America also do what China does.
- perennate 6y ago
  I think the US passing legislation that requires foreign companies to transfer their technology (or worse, copying brutally repressive CCP laws on media) would be far far far more damaging than surgically banning companies from specific countries under a reciprocal reaction.
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    Media laws would be progressive data protections, just evenly applied. But we know why that's not on the table. Tech transfer + JV only for countries that require it, i.e. reciprocal. Same with property, company, asset ownership which that bothers a lot of people. The point is there are reciprocal options for reciprocal advocates. But reading a lot of these reciprocal arguments, they look like a dogwhistle for containment, which is fine. Policy making circles discuss containment openly. Just be upfront about it and stop pretending it's about fairness. And try not to let reeeee China undermine longterm self-interests. Which this act seems to do.

Yet every time this is posted the default response is that China has done worse to US companies, so It's only fair! How do you reply to that? (not asking rhetorically)

komali2 6y ago

Being Bad is Bad

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dirtyid 6y ago

US media companies are free to operate in China, provided they follow Chinese media laws that applies to other domestic platforms. TikTok operates in US under US laws, that's technically fair and reciprocal. If people mean reciprocal in spirit, like joint venture, then TikTok partnering with Oracle and storing data in US server is reciprocal in spirit. You can apply this reciprocal state of exception for all Chinese companies in US, provided JV partners reciprocate in perks (i.e. in China JVs provide massive land and other subsidies). You can even legislate tech transfers for TikTok's algorithm. And for the purpose of trade and commercial entities operating to make a profit that's sufficient. But I surmise the crux of these bad-faith reciprocal arguments is that US should be able to impose its values on foreign markets, and US companies should be able operate in those markets to spread US values like how Chinese platforms operating under US values can shape US opinions. That's valid, but an that's a conversation well past trade fairness which TikTok has already met. But this isn't about trade fairness, this & Clean Network is about Chinese containment and US hegemony. And that's also valid. China's going to do what they do, the question people here needs to ask is should America also do what China does.

perennate 6y ago
I think the US passing legislation that requires foreign companies to transfer their technology (or worse, copying brutally repressive CCP laws on media) would be far far far more damaging than surgically banning companies from specific countries under a reciprocal reaction.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Media laws would be progressive data protections, just evenly applied. But we know why that's not on the table. Tech transfer + JV only for countries that require it, i.e. reciprocal. Same with property, company, asset ownership which that bothers a lot of people. The point is there are reciprocal options for reciprocal advocates. But reading a lot of these reciprocal arguments, they look like a dogwhistle for containment, which is fine. Policy making circles discuss containment openly. Just be upfront about it and stop pretending it's about fairness. And try not to let reeeee China undermine longterm self-interests. Which this act seems to do.