3 ms·

Every state requires information control to exist, secrecy is basis of national security. Multinational companies conforming to local laws and customs is status

Every state requires information control to exist, secrecy is basis of national security. Multinational companies conforming to local laws and customs is status quo. Most companies sell products and services not ideology even if ideology gets imbued via marketing. Sometimes pre-existing ideology comes preloaded in because regionalization and cultural competence cost extra. The entire trade will export western values narrative - an economic bug that westerners have conflated as a soft power feature because non-western markets have been too small to advocate for themselves. Now they're not. Global market =/= global values and global trade is not trade between peoples but governments. CCP wants to import phones, NBA games, blockbuster films not western values and certainly not western propaganda. No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to. And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally. That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough.

jessaustin 6y ago
Every state requires information control to exist... If that were true, rational people would be anarchists.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
"No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to. And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally. That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. " The argument is interesting. You may be right about non-western markets. I am not an expert so I won't address it. "Global market =/= global values and global trade is not trade between peoples but governments" And not both? It is possible that I am misunderstanding the statements. Could you elaborate? "CCP wants to import phones, NBA games, blockbuster films not western values and certainly not western propaganda." We all want things. But NBA, films, and values ARE all part of western propaganda. CCP may think it is cutting all the dangerous thoughts from the movie, but all it does is creating a streisand effects resulting in bans on number 8 and winnie the pooh. On the flip side, why does US have to comply with Chinese propaganda efforts? "No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to." I genuinely do not understand the comparison. Could you provide a different example? "And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally." Well, both statements are true are they not? They are banned, because they do not adhere to local laws. Stuff in Turkey is banned too and they are called out on it. It is not audacity to say water is wet. "That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. " I am stealing "peak exceptionalism' phrase. I agree with the sentiment, but it is not realistic based just one the comments you made at the very beginning ( "Multinational companies conforming to local laws and customs is status quo.").
- dirtyid 6y ago
  > And not both? International trade across border is fundamentally state to state agreement. Chinese citizen #1 does not directly engage with US company #2 when they make a commercial exchange. Geographic border is quite literally a physical barrier where transaction friction is reduced with instruments like trade deals. It's always mediated by laws from both parties (import/export controls) and sometimes a superbody (multilateral organizations). Smuggling wouldn't be a concept if relationship is between people to people. > ARE western propaganda Everything is political, but some politics are more acceptable than others. Censorship in media has gotten pretty overwhelming in PRC last few years, but "cutting all the dangerous thoughts" is gross hyperbole. Marvel blockbusters do fine in both China and US with minimal editing. Ditto with NBA before HK drama. Most western brands for that matter. There's overlap of shared taste in commercial goods and popular media, same can't be said on actual political news / propaganda like this instance. Especially this instance, if people knew what Guo is to CCP. Cracking down on speech and foreign influence is matter of priority and perspective. > different example Hard to think of one right now. Point is no one attaches values to trade of commodity items. No one insists McDonald's must sell pork/beef burgers in Islamic countries or India because of values, but when it comes to censorship and China/Vietnam, it's unreasonable for US social media platforms to follow local requirements. We're not even touching on a future where foreign companies actively endorse Chinese propaganda to cater to Chinese identity politics, instead of current reluctant endorsement due to legal compliance. > why does US have to comply No one has to comply, just don't expect market access, nor whine previous access is lost. > banned Dodgy Chinese brands vehicles aren't in US because they're banned but because they don't meet safety requirements. There are entire sectors of economy where foreign companies are actually banned i.e. some financial services. Implying western tech are banned is simply false, see Bing. But it's the basis of lots of grievance politics in tech, i.e. endorsing tiktok ban as reciprocal when tiktok follows all US laws. Same is not true vice versa. > not realistic Apple / Bing continues to operate fine in Chinese market. FB / Google were working on Chinese compliant services a few years ago. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. If you mean multinationals being beholden to multiple jurisdictions including home countries which supersedes everyone else, then yeah that's a finicky problem especially in tech when data can be weaponized. But that's a very broad matter of strategic policy decisions.

jessaustin 6y ago

Every state requires information control to exist... If that were true, rational people would be anarchists.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

"No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to. And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally. That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. " The argument is interesting. You may be right about non-western markets. I am not an expert so I won't address it. "Global market =/= global values and global trade is not trade between peoples but governments" And not both? It is possible that I am misunderstanding the statements. Could you elaborate? "CCP wants to import phones, NBA games, blockbuster films not western values and certainly not western propaganda." We all want things. But NBA, films, and values ARE all part of western propaganda. CCP may think it is cutting all the dangerous thoughts from the movie, but all it does is creating a streisand effects resulting in bans on number 8 and winnie the pooh. On the flip side, why does US have to comply with Chinese propaganda efforts? "No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to." I genuinely do not understand the comparison. Could you provide a different example? "And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally." Well, both statements are true are they not? They are banned, because they do not adhere to local laws. Stuff in Turkey is banned too and they are called out on it. It is not audacity to say water is wet. "That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. " I am stealing "peak exceptionalism' phrase. I agree with the sentiment, but it is not realistic based just one the comments you made at the very beginning ( "Multinational companies conforming to local laws and customs is status quo.").

dirtyid 6y ago
> And not both? International trade across border is fundamentally state to state agreement. Chinese citizen #1 does not directly engage with US company #2 when they make a commercial exchange. Geographic border is quite literally a physical barrier where transaction friction is reduced with instruments like trade deals. It's always mediated by laws from both parties (import/export controls) and sometimes a superbody (multilateral organizations). Smuggling wouldn't be a concept if relationship is between people to people. > ARE western propaganda Everything is political, but some politics are more acceptable than others. Censorship in media has gotten pretty overwhelming in PRC last few years, but "cutting all the dangerous thoughts" is gross hyperbole. Marvel blockbusters do fine in both China and US with minimal editing. Ditto with NBA before HK drama. Most western brands for that matter. There's overlap of shared taste in commercial goods and popular media, same can't be said on actual political news / propaganda like this instance. Especially this instance, if people knew what Guo is to CCP. Cracking down on speech and foreign influence is matter of priority and perspective. > different example Hard to think of one right now. Point is no one attaches values to trade of commodity items. No one insists McDonald's must sell pork/beef burgers in Islamic countries or India because of values, but when it comes to censorship and China/Vietnam, it's unreasonable for US social media platforms to follow local requirements. We're not even touching on a future where foreign companies actively endorse Chinese propaganda to cater to Chinese identity politics, instead of current reluctant endorsement due to legal compliance. > why does US have to comply No one has to comply, just don't expect market access, nor whine previous access is lost. > banned Dodgy Chinese brands vehicles aren't in US because they're banned but because they don't meet safety requirements. There are entire sectors of economy where foreign companies are actually banned i.e. some financial services. Implying western tech are banned is simply false, see Bing. But it's the basis of lots of grievance politics in tech, i.e. endorsing tiktok ban as reciprocal when tiktok follows all US laws. Same is not true vice versa. > not realistic Apple / Bing continues to operate fine in Chinese market. FB / Google were working on Chinese compliant services a few years ago. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. If you mean multinationals being beholden to multiple jurisdictions including home countries which supersedes everyone else, then yeah that's a finicky problem especially in tech when data can be weaponized. But that's a very broad matter of strategic policy decisions.