5 ms·

I'm not sure why we don't do this; not just the privacy is an issue but the fact that China bans so much US internet like Facebook.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xboxnolifes 4y ago
My understanding is that Chinese bans on US technology have reasons clearly codified in law and would not be banned if they followed the regulations. That being said, what US laws does TikTok not follow?
- Shared404 4y ago
  This is a good point. I would much rather we codify data protections, and then ban TikTok (and domestic) apps that do not comply.
  - xbar 4y ago
    I think you're right. I'd love to see a BRICS-oriented data protection law for the US, for example.
  - angio 4y ago
    That's what the EU is doing and it's a great approach.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > My understanding is that Chinese bans on US technology have reasons clearly codified in law and would not be banned if they followed the regulations. My understanding is that Chinese law is usually pretty vague and unclear, especially in areas like this, and in any case doesn't actually bind the government.
  - connicpu 4y ago
    Yeah, my understanding is a lot of Chinese laws are vague on purpose so that they can be interpreted to benefit companies the state likes, while punishing those the state does not like
    - workingon 4y ago
      Sounds like America. Didn’t we just ban Juuls while countless other electronic fruity vapes are on the market?
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Didn't a judge just stop the ban?
    - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” - General Óscar Benavides
- xdennis 4y ago
  The regulations include being completely subservient to the state. The US could make something similar to eliminate Chinese companies in terms of democracy vs dictatorship: pass a law saying that social media websites can only operate if their employees have the right to vote in their own countries. Then TikTok would be banned because it does not (/could not) follow the law.
izacus 4y ago
Is there a reason why you want to model yourself after China?
ziddoap 4y ago
>but the fact that China bans so much US internet like Facebook This seems like a poor reason to ban an application/website/whatever. Reminds me of elementary school drama. Find a legitimate and/or legal reason (e.g. the mass harvesting of biometric data, unbeknownst to the users, being fed into some opaque government-ran database) or it should not be banned.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > This seems like a poor reason to ban an application/website/whatever. Reminds me of elementary school drama. Find a legitimate and/or legal reason (e.g. the mass harvesting of biometric data, unbeknownst to the users, being fed into some opaque government-ran database) or it should not be banned. Um, no. Reciprocity is a pretty key concept in international relations, and a legitimate reason to take retaliatory measures. Also "we would rather not grant our adversary this advantage" is another legitimate reason to take action.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    >Um, no. Um, yes? >Reciprocity is a pretty key concept in international relations This makes much more sense in the context of physical goods and materials and international trade. It makes much less sense (I argue near-zero sense) in the context of some random non-lawbreaking, legitimate application or website. Edit to clarify: Refusing to export X to country Y hurts country Y, assuming they want X. Banning legitimate application X developed in country Y does not hurt country Y (unless the majoity/all revenue is from your country), it just hurts your own citizens who may rely on application X. "Cut off your nose to spite your face"
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > This makes much more sense in the context of physical goods and materials and international trade. It makes much less sense (I argue near-zero sense) in the context of some random non-lawbreaking, legitimate application or website. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. Even if the context was only business/trade (which it isn't), the American company is not able to operate in or make money from the Chinese market, while the Chinese company is currently has free reign to make money in the American one. The obvious thing to do is to reciprocally restrict the Chinese company to incentivize the removal of restrictions from the American company.
Barrin92 4y ago
Because as Milton Friedman pointed out, don't do to yourself what you do to an enemy in war. China banning American services is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to emulate censorship. If data harvesting was a genuine concern you might as well ban Facebook and every other social media app while you're at it. It's just hysteria and nationalism.
- 30944836 4y ago
  >China banning American services is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to emulate censorship. This is not true. China financializes everything, and pumps capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the history of the world. There is plenty of competition, as evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are fare more efficient and feature rich than anything in the US. See: WeChat.
  - bigcat12345678 4y ago
    > China financializes everything, and pumps capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the history of the world. Evidence please? I have long been suspicious of China's financial strategy, and had not found satisfactory sources on this topic.
    - 30944836 4y ago
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2020.1718913 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2020.1...
      - bigcat12345678 4y ago
        Nah, the title itself is too propagandist. What the hell is "authoritarian capitalism"?! Corporations are all authoritarian, to facilitate individual control of large resources owned by the corporation. Capitalism is just a nice term to coat the brutal underlying profit seeking gangster. Corolally, there is no such idea of liberal capitalism.
viktorcode 4y ago
You either operating on an open market, or in the government-controlled market.
dirtyid 4y ago
Because China doesn't ban US internet platforms, US internet platforms choose not to comply to PRC laws, which domestic PRC companies has to abide. Facebook/Twitter left because they couldn't/wouldn't censor calls of revenge killings during 2009 minority riots in PRC. It wasn't until NZ shooting and FB role in Rohigya genocide years later that political culture changed globally/domestically in US enough for FB to up the moderation game, around the time they wanted to re-enter PRC market. Except their employees protested and killed the initiative. Flip side is Bytedance/TikTok bending backwards to follow US laws, because Douyin is used to dealing with PRC regulatory bullshit, meanwhile their employees just want to make money instead of undermine company expansion plans with geopolitical culture wars. Like it's not hard, follow the law in the country you operate in and be competitive. TBH that really leaves some Google services, a lot of western platforms simply can't hack it against PRC competitors for domestic PRC market.
- john_yaya 4y ago
  Bytedance/TikTok are ignoring US law, as we saw in the news last week.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    >ignoring US law, They didn't. The entire Project Texas / Oracle / CFIUS agreement is in process of implementation. The drama is over China-based staff accessing data while working on Project Texas (to silo US data/traffic), even though Chinese nationals were not on the United States Technical Services team. The ultimate concern is China-based staff will have access to protected US data/traffic after and the effectiveness of implementation. No laws were broken, but doubt whether Bytedance efforts would effectively prevent access. No laws were broken.
- tatrajim 4y ago
  And when US companies attempt to obey Chinese law and are banned anyway? Nice to know that Apple was given "equal legal consideration" in China in 2016 when its iBooks store and iTunes movie store were suddenly ordered shut after six months of operation. Oh, wait. . . they weren't given any legal recourse at all and the Obama administration did nothing about it while Silicon Valley grandees kept conspicuously silent. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longer-immune-to-chinas-scrutiny-of-us-tech-firms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longe...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

xboxnolifes 4y ago

My understanding is that Chinese bans on US technology have reasons clearly codified in law and would not be banned if they followed the regulations. That being said, what US laws does TikTok not follow?

Shared404 4y ago
This is a good point. I would much rather we codify data protections, and then ban TikTok (and domestic) apps that do not comply.
- xbar 4y ago
  I think you're right. I'd love to see a BRICS-oriented data protection law for the US, for example.
- angio 4y ago
  That's what the EU is doing and it's a great approach.
tablespoon 4y ago
> My understanding is that Chinese bans on US technology have reasons clearly codified in law and would not be banned if they followed the regulations. My understanding is that Chinese law is usually pretty vague and unclear, especially in areas like this, and in any case doesn't actually bind the government.
- connicpu 4y ago
  Yeah, my understanding is a lot of Chinese laws are vague on purpose so that they can be interpreted to benefit companies the state likes, while punishing those the state does not like
  - workingon 4y ago
    Sounds like America. Didn’t we just ban Juuls while countless other electronic fruity vapes are on the market?
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Didn't a judge just stop the ban?
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” - General Óscar Benavides
xdennis 4y ago
The regulations include being completely subservient to the state. The US could make something similar to eliminate Chinese companies in terms of democracy vs dictatorship: pass a law saying that social media websites can only operate if their employees have the right to vote in their own countries. Then TikTok would be banned because it does not (/could not) follow the law.

izacus 4y ago

Is there a reason why you want to model yourself after China?

ziddoap 4y ago

>but the fact that China bans so much US internet like Facebook This seems like a poor reason to ban an application/website/whatever. Reminds me of elementary school drama. Find a legitimate and/or legal reason (e.g. the mass harvesting of biometric data, unbeknownst to the users, being fed into some opaque government-ran database) or it should not be banned.

tablespoon 4y ago
> This seems like a poor reason to ban an application/website/whatever. Reminds me of elementary school drama. Find a legitimate and/or legal reason (e.g. the mass harvesting of biometric data, unbeknownst to the users, being fed into some opaque government-ran database) or it should not be banned. Um, no. Reciprocity is a pretty key concept in international relations, and a legitimate reason to take retaliatory measures. Also "we would rather not grant our adversary this advantage" is another legitimate reason to take action.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  >Um, no. Um, yes? >Reciprocity is a pretty key concept in international relations This makes much more sense in the context of physical goods and materials and international trade. It makes much less sense (I argue near-zero sense) in the context of some random non-lawbreaking, legitimate application or website. Edit to clarify: Refusing to export X to country Y hurts country Y, assuming they want X. Banning legitimate application X developed in country Y does not hurt country Y (unless the majoity/all revenue is from your country), it just hurts your own citizens who may rely on application X. "Cut off your nose to spite your face"
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > This makes much more sense in the context of physical goods and materials and international trade. It makes much less sense (I argue near-zero sense) in the context of some random non-lawbreaking, legitimate application or website. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. Even if the context was only business/trade (which it isn't), the American company is not able to operate in or make money from the Chinese market, while the Chinese company is currently has free reign to make money in the American one. The obvious thing to do is to reciprocally restrict the Chinese company to incentivize the removal of restrictions from the American company.

Barrin92 4y ago

Because as Milton Friedman pointed out, don't do to yourself what you do to an enemy in war. China banning American services is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to emulate censorship. If data harvesting was a genuine concern you might as well ban Facebook and every other social media app while you're at it. It's just hysteria and nationalism.

30944836 4y ago
>China banning American services is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to emulate censorship. This is not true. China financializes everything, and pumps capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the history of the world. There is plenty of competition, as evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are fare more efficient and feature rich than anything in the US. See: WeChat.
- bigcat12345678 4y ago
  > China financializes everything, and pumps capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the history of the world. Evidence please? I have long been suspicious of China's financial strategy, and had not found satisfactory sources on this topic.
  - 30944836 4y ago
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2020.1718913 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2020.1...
    - bigcat12345678 4y ago
      Nah, the title itself is too propagandist. What the hell is "authoritarian capitalism"?! Corporations are all authoritarian, to facilitate individual control of large resources owned by the corporation. Capitalism is just a nice term to coat the brutal underlying profit seeking gangster. Corolally, there is no such idea of liberal capitalism.

viktorcode 4y ago

You either operating on an open market, or in the government-controlled market.

dirtyid 4y ago

Because China doesn't ban US internet platforms, US internet platforms choose not to comply to PRC laws, which domestic PRC companies has to abide. Facebook/Twitter left because they couldn't/wouldn't censor calls of revenge killings during 2009 minority riots in PRC. It wasn't until NZ shooting and FB role in Rohigya genocide years later that political culture changed globally/domestically in US enough for FB to up the moderation game, around the time they wanted to re-enter PRC market. Except their employees protested and killed the initiative. Flip side is Bytedance/TikTok bending backwards to follow US laws, because Douyin is used to dealing with PRC regulatory bullshit, meanwhile their employees just want to make money instead of undermine company expansion plans with geopolitical culture wars. Like it's not hard, follow the law in the country you operate in and be competitive. TBH that really leaves some Google services, a lot of western platforms simply can't hack it against PRC competitors for domestic PRC market.

john_yaya 4y ago
Bytedance/TikTok are ignoring US law, as we saw in the news last week.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  >ignoring US law, They didn't. The entire Project Texas / Oracle / CFIUS agreement is in process of implementation. The drama is over China-based staff accessing data while working on Project Texas (to silo US data/traffic), even though Chinese nationals were not on the United States Technical Services team. The ultimate concern is China-based staff will have access to protected US data/traffic after and the effectiveness of implementation. No laws were broken, but doubt whether Bytedance efforts would effectively prevent access. No laws were broken.
tatrajim 4y ago
And when US companies attempt to obey Chinese law and are banned anyway? Nice to know that Apple was given "equal legal consideration" in China in 2016 when its iBooks store and iTunes movie store were suddenly ordered shut after six months of operation. Oh, wait. . . they weren't given any legal recourse at all and the Obama administration did nothing about it while Silicon Valley grandees kept conspicuously silent. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longer-immune-to-chinas-scrutiny-of-us-tech-firms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longe...