8 ms·

It'll be interesting to see if the Biden admin has the same security concerns as the Trump admin r.e. TikTok. It's still not totally clear to me whether there w

It'll be interesting to see if the Biden admin has the same security concerns as the Trump admin r.e. TikTok. It's still not totally clear to me whether there was ever a real security concerns or if it was just a fig leaf for a political play. Of course, if Biden stops this process, that would not prove that the motivation was political. It could as easily be the case that declining to force the sale is a political move. Unfortunately, with the lack of transparency in the original decision making, it will be hard to ever know which is which.

zorked 6y ago
"Security concerns" is an excuse for protectionism. If he does the same it does not necessarily mean that the security concerns are real.
- gruez 6y ago
  >"Security concerns" is an excuse for protectionism Is protectionism really a bad thing, especially if it's in retaliation to chinese protectionism?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing. Tit-for-tat protectionism is also known as a trade war, which is also generally considered to be negative for both parties.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Tit-for-tat protectionism is also known as a trade war, which is also generally considered to be negative for both parties. It is, but if you fail to retaliate you're basically advertising to other countries that they can impose protectionist measures, which benefit them and harm you. Did EU/Canada get flak for imposing retaliatory tariffs in response to trump's tarrifs?
      - abfan1127 6y ago
        Milton Friedman describes how tariffs only cost the imposing country here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - echelon 6y ago
      > There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing. So we just let China copy our tech and sell it to us cheaper? What happens to our workforce and salaries? The same thing that happened to factory workers? I'm even more worried about their lack of free speech, rigid punishment/enforcement, and Orwellian tracking/social credit. We don't want those things here. But showing that they win makes it more likely to become pervasive. Edit: Downvotes on everything critical of China.
      - abfan1127 6y ago
        I think the "copy our tech" angle is interesting from a legal standpoint. Patents and copyrights are a legal framework to prevent importation of infringed materials. I'm not sure the answer, but interesting problem none the less.
      - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
        > What happens to our workforce and salaries? Ideally, people could work less and have the same standard of living, which is easier if things are cheaper. If I was an evil wealthy person interested in perpetuating my position through controlling people, but slavery was outlawed, I'd design a system where work is overvalued so people will be too tired to participate in civic life.
      - dartdartdart 6y ago
        I think you don't understand that US bosses set US salaries, they are the ones choosing to not use US labor.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Unfortunately it’s up to both parties to avoid Tit-for-tat protectionism, a one sided trade war is over time the worst of all three options as there is no reason for the other party to stop. It’s the same reason WWII was less economicly expensive than the Cold War.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      China restricted access to its markets from the onset. They forced foreign companies to operate JVs to access their market or labour and forced a lot of technology transfers. Their whole HSR industry was built on this model. Protectionism works depending where your POV is from.
    - raverbashing 6y ago
      > There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing. Economists are short-sighted there. Yes, economically, speaking in general protectionism is more harmful than not. But things like selling essential companies, infrastructure or have foreign and possible hostile players in critical positions is risky.
    - rasz 6y ago
      Economists, the famously recognized scientists! Meanwhile protectionism lifted china in less than 30 years to the level of a superpower.
      - amadeuspagel 6y ago
        China has a lower per capita GDP then Botswana and Iraq.[1] It's a superpower mainly because it has a huge population. [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    The rule of law in our own country is extremely important -- more important than any particular protectionist policy goal. The law does not give the president the power to unilaterally force the sale of assets for the purpose of protectionism. This is leaving aside whether protectionism is good or bad in any particular case. This is why I'm mainly interested in the real reasons why we took this action.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >The rule of law in our own country is extremely important -- more important than any particular protectionist policy goal. The law does not give the president the power to unilaterally force the sale of assets for the purpose of protectionism. The president might not have the authority to force a sale, but he does have the authority to impose tariffs and maybe even ban it outright (embargos/quotas). At the end of the day the results are the same: you can either sell your US operations to a US company, or we can destroy your US market share by imposing tariffs and/or banning your product.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        If the president wants to invoke that authority (assuming you are correct about its extent), then that's his right. What is not his right is to expropriate assets under false pretenses.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    Milton Friedman says it is a really bad thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4 He talks more about it in the series, Free to Choose. I forget which video he does so, but all videos are fantastic. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcm84hKEpyZQfhxhVFB8r5LjTjmgdJXOu https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcm84hKEpyZQfhxhVFB8r...
    - gruez 6y ago
      He doesn't seem to provide anything in the way of justification or evidence, other than same hand-wavy statement about them having to spend US dollars.
      - abfan1127 6y ago
        its a short clip to introduce the idea. He has plenty of writings on the subject. The reality is that they do have to spend US dollars. That's not in irrelevant detail. https://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedman/e/B000AQ23N6 https://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedman/e/B000AQ23N6
- bassman9000 6y ago
  "Security concerns" are security concerns with China. Anything else is naive.
shawnz 6y ago
What do you consider to be a real security concern? Isn't it enough that they already have a long history of abusing the rule of law and coercing all businesses into following the party's wishes? I would argue that, given their history, removing the opportunity of the CCP to make a political play is a valid security concern.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That we're banning TikTok, but not Chinese-manufactured chips and electronics and whatnot, indicates it's a heavily political play.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    While I agree dependence on Chinese semiconductors/electronics is probably a bigger security risk overall, what other choice do we have in that industry? Banning TikTok was only a "heavily political play" because there are strong political forces in place preventing any action from being taken against China. Anything which is able to overcome those forces is bound to be "heavily political". That doesn't necessarily mean the action was the wrong thing to do.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Tiktockers pranked tickets to a Trump rally. Got the Evil Eye after that.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  To be clear, I'm interested in the real reason they're doing it, not their ability to backfill a rationalization. If that's the real reason, well enough. But I am somewhat skeptical that it is. I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say.
vmchale 6y ago
I thought he just got offended by dancing teens making fun of him lol
publicola1990 6y ago
I think most of the hawkish policies against TikTok etc was being driven by people like Peter Navarro and Pompeo who are going to be out of the picture now. Navarro has especially come under flak for being the US government's "China" expert with insufficient knowledge and experience on the subject.
throwaway-sf 6y ago
Too lazy to find the article but I read that Biden's campaign told all staffers to delete TikTok off their phones back in July.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  That is an impressive level of laziness. Googling "biden delete tiktok" found the article. https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/27/21341062/biden-staff-delete-tiktok-personal-work-phones https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/27/21341062/biden-staff-dele... Not sure if the security concerns of a presidential campaign would necessarily extend to banning the app for all contexts in the country, even those where security impinges less.
dartdartdart 6y ago
A huge amount of biden's support base is on tiktok and they are fairly politically active as well. I'd think it's political

zorked 6y ago

"Security concerns" is an excuse for protectionism. If he does the same it does not necessarily mean that the security concerns are real.

gruez 6y ago
>"Security concerns" is an excuse for protectionism Is protectionism really a bad thing, especially if it's in retaliation to chinese protectionism?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing. Tit-for-tat protectionism is also known as a trade war, which is also generally considered to be negative for both parties.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Tit-for-tat protectionism is also known as a trade war, which is also generally considered to be negative for both parties. It is, but if you fail to retaliate you're basically advertising to other countries that they can impose protectionist measures, which benefit them and harm you. Did EU/Canada get flak for imposing retaliatory tariffs in response to trump's tarrifs?
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      Milton Friedman describes how tariffs only cost the imposing country here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - echelon 6y ago
    > There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing. So we just let China copy our tech and sell it to us cheaper? What happens to our workforce and salaries? The same thing that happened to factory workers? I'm even more worried about their lack of free speech, rigid punishment/enforcement, and Orwellian tracking/social credit. We don't want those things here. But showing that they win makes it more likely to become pervasive. Edit: Downvotes on everything critical of China.
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      I think the "copy our tech" angle is interesting from a legal standpoint. Patents and copyrights are a legal framework to prevent importation of infringed materials. I'm not sure the answer, but interesting problem none the less.
    - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
      > What happens to our workforce and salaries? Ideally, people could work less and have the same standard of living, which is easier if things are cheaper. If I was an evil wealthy person interested in perpetuating my position through controlling people, but slavery was outlawed, I'd design a system where work is overvalued so people will be too tired to participate in civic life.
    - dartdartdart 6y ago
      I think you don't understand that US bosses set US salaries, they are the ones choosing to not use US labor.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Unfortunately it’s up to both parties to avoid Tit-for-tat protectionism, a one sided trade war is over time the worst of all three options as there is no reason for the other party to stop. It’s the same reason WWII was less economicly expensive than the Cold War.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    China restricted access to its markets from the onset. They forced foreign companies to operate JVs to access their market or labour and forced a lot of technology transfers. Their whole HSR industry was built on this model. Protectionism works depending where your POV is from.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    > There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing. Economists are short-sighted there. Yes, economically, speaking in general protectionism is more harmful than not. But things like selling essential companies, infrastructure or have foreign and possible hostile players in critical positions is risky.
  - rasz 6y ago
    Economists, the famously recognized scientists! Meanwhile protectionism lifted china in less than 30 years to the level of a superpower.
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      China has a lower per capita GDP then Botswana and Iraq.[1] It's a superpower mainly because it has a huge population. [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  The rule of law in our own country is extremely important -- more important than any particular protectionist policy goal. The law does not give the president the power to unilaterally force the sale of assets for the purpose of protectionism. This is leaving aside whether protectionism is good or bad in any particular case. This is why I'm mainly interested in the real reasons why we took this action.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >The rule of law in our own country is extremely important -- more important than any particular protectionist policy goal. The law does not give the president the power to unilaterally force the sale of assets for the purpose of protectionism. The president might not have the authority to force a sale, but he does have the authority to impose tariffs and maybe even ban it outright (embargos/quotas). At the end of the day the results are the same: you can either sell your US operations to a US company, or we can destroy your US market share by imposing tariffs and/or banning your product.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      If the president wants to invoke that authority (assuming you are correct about its extent), then that's his right. What is not his right is to expropriate assets under false pretenses.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  Milton Friedman says it is a really bad thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4 He talks more about it in the series, Free to Choose. I forget which video he does so, but all videos are fantastic. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcm84hKEpyZQfhxhVFB8r5LjTjmgdJXOu https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcm84hKEpyZQfhxhVFB8r...
  - gruez 6y ago
    He doesn't seem to provide anything in the way of justification or evidence, other than same hand-wavy statement about them having to spend US dollars.
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      its a short clip to introduce the idea. He has plenty of writings on the subject. The reality is that they do have to spend US dollars. That's not in irrelevant detail. https://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedman/e/B000AQ23N6 https://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedman/e/B000AQ23N6
bassman9000 6y ago
"Security concerns" are security concerns with China. Anything else is naive.

shawnz 6y ago

What do you consider to be a real security concern? Isn't it enough that they already have a long history of abusing the rule of law and coercing all businesses into following the party's wishes? I would argue that, given their history, removing the opportunity of the CCP to make a political play is a valid security concern.

ceejayoz 6y ago
That we're banning TikTok, but not Chinese-manufactured chips and electronics and whatnot, indicates it's a heavily political play.
- shawnz 6y ago
  While I agree dependence on Chinese semiconductors/electronics is probably a bigger security risk overall, what other choice do we have in that industry? Banning TikTok was only a "heavily political play" because there are strong political forces in place preventing any action from being taken against China. Anything which is able to overcome those forces is bound to be "heavily political". That doesn't necessarily mean the action was the wrong thing to do.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    Tiktockers pranked tickets to a Trump rally. Got the Evil Eye after that.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
To be clear, I'm interested in the real reason they're doing it, not their ability to backfill a rationalization. If that's the real reason, well enough. But I am somewhat skeptical that it is. I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say.

vmchale 6y ago

I thought he just got offended by dancing teens making fun of him lol

publicola1990 6y ago

I think most of the hawkish policies against TikTok etc was being driven by people like Peter Navarro and Pompeo who are going to be out of the picture now. Navarro has especially come under flak for being the US government's "China" expert with insufficient knowledge and experience on the subject.

throwaway-sf 6y ago

Too lazy to find the article but I read that Biden's campaign told all staffers to delete TikTok off their phones back in July.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
That is an impressive level of laziness. Googling "biden delete tiktok" found the article. https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/27/21341062/biden-staff-delete-tiktok-personal-work-phones https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/27/21341062/biden-staff-dele... Not sure if the security concerns of a presidential campaign would necessarily extend to banning the app for all contexts in the country, even those where security impinges less.

dartdartdart 6y ago

A huge amount of biden's support base is on tiktok and they are fairly politically active as well. I'd think it's political