3 ms·

> 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 m

> 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.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    >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 I think this is our disconnect. I don't care if some random American company can't make money in China. Nor do I care if a legitimate application that happened to be developed in China is able to make money in America. Why should I care? And assuming I use that application or website, why should I be the one to be punished? Just so some other company can gain some market segment? The context here isn't war or something else severe like that, my point is and has been only in the strict context of legitimate websites and applications (i.e. they aren't breaking American laws, they aren't siphoning American data, etc.). But hey, maybe this is why I'm not a foreign policy expert and instead I'm just some guy on the internet, enjoying what people all over the world have developed and hoping that my government doesn't ban them because of spite.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > I think this is our disconnect. I don't care if some random American company can't make money in China. Nor do I care if a legitimate application that happened to be developed in China is able to make money in America. Why should I care? You or I might not care personally about the specific case, but I was speaking from the perspective of the government. They certainly care because they have responsibilities for the economy. I care too, indirectly, because I have interest in the economy doing well (e.g. if Facebook hires a bunch of American developers because they're making bank in China, that's a better for me because the increased demand makes some things a little better for me). But the trade/economics thing here is a distant second to the national security concerns at play. It's significant that TikTok is under the control of a geopolitical rival, not an ally.
      - ziddoap 4y ago
        > I care too, indirectly, because I have interest in the economy doing well (e.g. if Facebook hires a bunch of American developers because they're making bank in China, that's a better for me because the increased demand makes some things a little better for me). Valid point, although I still think that banning a non-related, legitimate application that is used by Americans is a poor way of approaching the issue. But I concede that there is more variables at play than I had in my head during my initial comment. >It's significant that TikTok is under the control of a geopolitical rival, not an ally. I never disagreed with this point, and tried to make that clear in my initial comment where I specifically used the mass harvesting of biometric data as an example of a reason I would consider legitimate.
- xdennis 4y ago
  It's quite the opposite. Reciprocity hurts more with physical goods. In a trade war, if a country bans export X in retaliation, the citizens of the country also hurt because they have to pay more to buy from other sources. But with a social web site, citizens lose nothing by having to switch to another data-sucking web site, especially since their contacts are now less fragmented across social media sites due to the ban.
johnwheeler 4y ago
The reason China bans Facebook, I think, is about stifling competition because they know these internet platforms are about creating global monopolies and they want to win or at least not lose. Edit: this was meant for the parent thread

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.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  >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 I think this is our disconnect. I don't care if some random American company can't make money in China. Nor do I care if a legitimate application that happened to be developed in China is able to make money in America. Why should I care? And assuming I use that application or website, why should I be the one to be punished? Just so some other company can gain some market segment? The context here isn't war or something else severe like that, my point is and has been only in the strict context of legitimate websites and applications (i.e. they aren't breaking American laws, they aren't siphoning American data, etc.). But hey, maybe this is why I'm not a foreign policy expert and instead I'm just some guy on the internet, enjoying what people all over the world have developed and hoping that my government doesn't ban them because of spite.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > I think this is our disconnect. I don't care if some random American company can't make money in China. Nor do I care if a legitimate application that happened to be developed in China is able to make money in America. Why should I care? You or I might not care personally about the specific case, but I was speaking from the perspective of the government. They certainly care because they have responsibilities for the economy. I care too, indirectly, because I have interest in the economy doing well (e.g. if Facebook hires a bunch of American developers because they're making bank in China, that's a better for me because the increased demand makes some things a little better for me). But the trade/economics thing here is a distant second to the national security concerns at play. It's significant that TikTok is under the control of a geopolitical rival, not an ally.
    - ziddoap 4y ago
      > I care too, indirectly, because I have interest in the economy doing well (e.g. if Facebook hires a bunch of American developers because they're making bank in China, that's a better for me because the increased demand makes some things a little better for me). Valid point, although I still think that banning a non-related, legitimate application that is used by Americans is a poor way of approaching the issue. But I concede that there is more variables at play than I had in my head during my initial comment. >It's significant that TikTok is under the control of a geopolitical rival, not an ally. I never disagreed with this point, and tried to make that clear in my initial comment where I specifically used the mass harvesting of biometric data as an example of a reason I would consider legitimate.
xdennis 4y ago
It's quite the opposite. Reciprocity hurts more with physical goods. In a trade war, if a country bans export X in retaliation, the citizens of the country also hurt because they have to pay more to buy from other sources. But with a social web site, citizens lose nothing by having to switch to another data-sucking web site, especially since their contacts are now less fragmented across social media sites due to the ban.

johnwheeler 4y ago

The reason China bans Facebook, I think, is about stifling competition because they know these internet platforms are about creating global monopolies and they want to win or at least not lose. Edit: this was meant for the parent thread