5 ms·

The US does in fact do the same. It limits the high-level IP transfers so that China cannot develop and compete higher up in the technology chain. You think the

The US does in fact do the same. It limits the high-level IP transfers so that China cannot develop and compete higher up in the technology chain. You think the fact that they manufacture the world's plastic crap and assemble iPhones is an enviable position? The reason why we're stepping it up is because China has shown that they can domestically grow successful tech and social media companies that can penetrate the US market. It's not so much national security that's the issue more than it is insecurity in our fundamental beliefs that our system is inherently superior because they're now crossed the barrier higher up in the value chain. We gave them manufacturing just like we gave domestic immigrants the "dirty" jobs that no one wanted.

jariel 6y ago
This is a minor issue in the TikTok war. #1 is national security. #2 is trade, level playing field i.e. tit-for-tat policies. Secondary issues are: a) As you say, competitive fears - but TikTok is not a threat in that sense. b) Trump's personal ambitions and elections. TT users apparently screwed up his GOP nomination event. Likely nothing at all to do with CCP, but Trump is an emotional guy, and I think this is 'him getting back at TT' on some level. But #1 and #2 are legit and the first-order issues. There need be nothing else to legitimize this.
- chrischen 6y ago
  #1 can be used to justify anything. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to start blocking / severely limiting US social media companies. #2 Blocking apps used for the dissemination of information is a free-speech issue. China blocks information because that's what they believe in. US blocking information is fundamentally against our beliefs. If China jumped off a bridge would we do so as well? #2 however is the true reason. We're getting insecure about our dominance in certain industries and are applying more "tit-for-tat" policies—even if they contradict our core beliefs. If China wants to block US social media companies that should be perfectly fine. They get less domestic competition, and lower quality social media services should develop (in theory at least). We should welcome their competition despite this because competition breeds innovation and a healthy competitive landscape. However in reality we're resorting to tit-for-tat tactics because we're insecure about the fundamental superiority of a free and competitive market's ability to develop market-leading businesses and innovation.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > Blocking apps used for the dissemination of information is a free-speech issue. I think there is an argument to be made that TT is not an open forum. The only party that speaks through the app is the Chinese government.
  - jariel 6y ago
    You have missed both points entirely. You're assuming that there are 'free market' conditions here (i.e. competition) - there are not. Not even close. 'Free market' ideals such as 'competition and innovation' are not the issues here, because a) there is no 'free market' and b) we're talking about mass media, which is really not about 'innovation'. #1 is a very legitimate issue. To control the mass media, is to control a nation, this is not a 'new world order' concept, it's as old as time. The CCP maintains it's power in China due to it's control over the media, not the army. By suppressing any and all information against them, and controlling all of the messaging people hear, and of course limiting outside access, you can effectively control people. Media is a protected industry everywhere. Tell me who owns the main media outlets in Sweden? Germany? UK? USA? They are almost universally domestically owned and operated - when they are not (Rupert Murdoch) even then it creates problems. The very existence of the BBC, CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia) speaks to this. Imagine if the CCP itself wanted to buy NBC News. Would we allow that? No. It's not a lite argument to say 'security' can be used for anything, after all any excuse can be used to validate something. #1 is real. As far as #2 - you're crossing streams. China has a completely 'unlevel' playing field vis-a-vis the US in many markets. CCP controls monetary policy, industrial policy, major banks and most major industry players. This is 'not allowed' in free trade, because it means the CCP will do things like 'require large banks to subsidize solar panel makers to produce surplus to dump on US markets and put US players out of business'. This is not a hypothetical - it happened. China doesn't allow foreign competitors in so many markets: foreign entities must be 51% China owned. They must have CCP officials working at the company to force CCP oversight. They must censor information, provide data to the CCP. Foreign entities must hand over IP to the CCP so they can give it to competitive entities. China puts up all sorts of non-market barriers to competition. So when we talk about 'number 2' - the US, in order to provide a 'fair trade' scenario, should effectively apply the very same policies. So imagine: 1) Chinese companies cannot operate in the US unless 51% US ownership. 2) They must employ GOP/CIA/FBI internally in order to effectuate US strategic policy, censorship. 3) Chinese companies must hand over source code and IP, so the US can give it to local companies while the US 'holds up' Chinese competitor in red tape. 4) US government takes control of the Fed, major banks, and provides massive subsidies to Cisco, and subsidizes Ciscos sales internationally with extremely good financing terms. 5) US government uses industrial espionage to grab Chinese IP and invest in local companies, for example, stealing all Huawei's designs etc., copying them, and creating a company to compete with them etc.. Those would be 'tit for tat' policies implying 'fair trade' between the US and China. Your comments about 'concerns over competitiveness' are actually way, way further down the pile of issues. As I say, 'national security' is reason enough for the ban. After that, there are a host of 'fair trade' issues that should be applied. Only then does it even make sense to start worrying about the more strategic competitive issues, because until then there is no market based competition.

jariel 6y ago

This is a minor issue in the TikTok war. #1 is national security. #2 is trade, level playing field i.e. tit-for-tat policies. Secondary issues are: a) As you say, competitive fears - but TikTok is not a threat in that sense. b) Trump's personal ambitions and elections. TT users apparently screwed up his GOP nomination event. Likely nothing at all to do with CCP, but Trump is an emotional guy, and I think this is 'him getting back at TT' on some level. But #1 and #2 are legit and the first-order issues. There need be nothing else to legitimize this.

chrischen 6y ago
#1 can be used to justify anything. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to start blocking / severely limiting US social media companies. #2 Blocking apps used for the dissemination of information is a free-speech issue. China blocks information because that's what they believe in. US blocking information is fundamentally against our beliefs. If China jumped off a bridge would we do so as well? #2 however is the true reason. We're getting insecure about our dominance in certain industries and are applying more "tit-for-tat" policies—even if they contradict our core beliefs. If China wants to block US social media companies that should be perfectly fine. They get less domestic competition, and lower quality social media services should develop (in theory at least). We should welcome their competition despite this because competition breeds innovation and a healthy competitive landscape. However in reality we're resorting to tit-for-tat tactics because we're insecure about the fundamental superiority of a free and competitive market's ability to develop market-leading businesses and innovation.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > Blocking apps used for the dissemination of information is a free-speech issue. I think there is an argument to be made that TT is not an open forum. The only party that speaks through the app is the Chinese government.
- jariel 6y ago
  You have missed both points entirely. You're assuming that there are 'free market' conditions here (i.e. competition) - there are not. Not even close. 'Free market' ideals such as 'competition and innovation' are not the issues here, because a) there is no 'free market' and b) we're talking about mass media, which is really not about 'innovation'. #1 is a very legitimate issue. To control the mass media, is to control a nation, this is not a 'new world order' concept, it's as old as time. The CCP maintains it's power in China due to it's control over the media, not the army. By suppressing any and all information against them, and controlling all of the messaging people hear, and of course limiting outside access, you can effectively control people. Media is a protected industry everywhere. Tell me who owns the main media outlets in Sweden? Germany? UK? USA? They are almost universally domestically owned and operated - when they are not (Rupert Murdoch) even then it creates problems. The very existence of the BBC, CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia) speaks to this. Imagine if the CCP itself wanted to buy NBC News. Would we allow that? No. It's not a lite argument to say 'security' can be used for anything, after all any excuse can be used to validate something. #1 is real. As far as #2 - you're crossing streams. China has a completely 'unlevel' playing field vis-a-vis the US in many markets. CCP controls monetary policy, industrial policy, major banks and most major industry players. This is 'not allowed' in free trade, because it means the CCP will do things like 'require large banks to subsidize solar panel makers to produce surplus to dump on US markets and put US players out of business'. This is not a hypothetical - it happened. China doesn't allow foreign competitors in so many markets: foreign entities must be 51% China owned. They must have CCP officials working at the company to force CCP oversight. They must censor information, provide data to the CCP. Foreign entities must hand over IP to the CCP so they can give it to competitive entities. China puts up all sorts of non-market barriers to competition. So when we talk about 'number 2' - the US, in order to provide a 'fair trade' scenario, should effectively apply the very same policies. So imagine: 1) Chinese companies cannot operate in the US unless 51% US ownership. 2) They must employ GOP/CIA/FBI internally in order to effectuate US strategic policy, censorship. 3) Chinese companies must hand over source code and IP, so the US can give it to local companies while the US 'holds up' Chinese competitor in red tape. 4) US government takes control of the Fed, major banks, and provides massive subsidies to Cisco, and subsidizes Ciscos sales internationally with extremely good financing terms. 5) US government uses industrial espionage to grab Chinese IP and invest in local companies, for example, stealing all Huawei's designs etc., copying them, and creating a company to compete with them etc.. Those would be 'tit for tat' policies implying 'fair trade' between the US and China. Your comments about 'concerns over competitiveness' are actually way, way further down the pile of issues. As I say, 'national security' is reason enough for the ban. After that, there are a host of 'fair trade' issues that should be applied. Only then does it even make sense to start worrying about the more strategic competitive issues, because until then there is no market based competition.