5 ms·

Not sure that US really wants to set a precedent of protectionism when so many large US technology companies operate globally.

• mc32 4y ago
  We're among the least protectionist -not to say we are not protectionist, but comparatively. Others have set the precedent for us. They need no examples or encouragement. That said, yes, the 1A implications are thorny.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    1A was not written so that hostile foreign governments can flood your zone with shit.
    • mc32 4y ago
      It's interesting question. We have VoA or whatever. Would the FCC allow a VoRussia or VoChina radio transmitter in the US whose sole purpose was to push Chinese or Russian propaganda? Probably in a war declaration we could shut them down, but what about peacetime?
      • pjc50 4y ago
        > Would the FCC allow a VoRussia or VoChina radio transmitter in the US whose sole purpose was to push Chinese or Russian propaganda? I'm sure they already do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America was operating right up until the imposition of sanctions.
        • mc32 4y ago
          Yeah, but that was more akin to the BBC or even Xinhua. I mean a specifically propagandist station like the VoA or RFE. But that said, looks like all the Biden admin needs to do is set up some sanctions (for whatever reason) and put TT under that umbrella and voila!
          • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
            I see news articles about US mass shootings on VoA- how is that US propaganda?
            • yamtaddle 4y ago
              A smart foreign propaganda news outlet doesn't simply censor everything that makes their sponsor country look bad. You can push a worldview while still reporting most of the same stuff any other outlet would, and having actually-decent coverage means more people will tune in—then you save the heavy-handed slanted coverage for when it really matters. Hell, look at something like The Economist. They're regarded as an excellent news source, which makes their efforts at pushing a certain economic and political POV far more successful than if they pushed it so hard that they weren't a good news source.
          • computerfriend 4y ago
            The BBC and Xinhua are nothing at all alike.
• hvs 4y ago
  The U.S. has a long, proud history of protectionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
  • refurb 4y ago
    Did you post the wrong link? It’s basically all about China’s trade protectionism and US attempts at stopping it.
  • Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    I would say a bit more about my position rather than just make the claim that the US has a long and proud(?) history of protectionism. The US had and still has protectionist policies. Interestingly, the trade war was not so much protectionist as anti-China. The difference being that the US would rather buy from somewhere else, and if from China then it will be taxed. But protectionism means to protect a countries businesses. There were of course protectionist elements but in my opinion that was not the focus. A famous example of US protectionism was the Japan situation in the 1980s where Reagan forced Japan to limit their output to the US market. Speaking of Japan, it, from 1930 until about 1970, was a great example of protectionism. No foreign companies were allowed to operate in Japan until 1960, and even then it was only in uninmportant low-margin industries. Imports were completely controlled by the Japanese government, which imported _everything_ based on what they thought was needed: automobiles are something that were almost never imported, for example. China today is less protectionist than Japan at it's peak but still many factors more protectionist than the US. For example, one cannot directly open a foreign business in China. They must work with a domestic company that takes half their profits. All this isn't to say that the US isn't protectionist, or that protectionism is even bad. But your claim that "The U.S. has a long, proud history of protectionism" really has no qualifying element, and in fact all the qualifiers seem to go in the opposite direct that they should.
• deltarholamda 4y ago
  Why shouldn't the US be protectionist? The country does not exist for the benefit of large technology companies.
• zip1234 4y ago
  Reciprocal protectionism is much different than unilaterally doing it. Also, the Chinese gov has clearly taken an aggressive and adversarial stance against the US.