5 ms·

What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago. China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companie

by abeppu 4y ago

What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago. China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companies can provide such a service to US customers? Is that not protectionism? If we're afraid that China will use TikTok to push their propaganda in the US, we should be appropriately concerned that banning a platform to stop targeted speech is in conflict with our own norms around free speech. But instead insisting that TikTok can only operate in the US if FB/Snap/Twitter can operate in China on equal terms seems like it would be more in line with our rhetoric around wanting a rules-based international order, and freedom of both trade and speech under most circumstances. If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China, their fear of our propaganda would be much worse than our fear of theirs.

alephnerd 4y ago
PRC has "developing nation" status in the WTO. This allows the PRC to get special and differential treatment in a number of IP and general trade related agreements.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Why can't the US throw it's weight around and get "developing nation" status as well. It certainly seems beneficial.
tzs 4y ago
If those companies were willing to obey the same rules that Chinese companies have to obey in China (censoring what the government tells them to censor, sharing personal data that the government asks for, sharing technology that the governments asks for) they could operate in China. It's not all that different from how US restaurant chains cannot operate in the UAE unless they take things off the menu that violate Islamic dietary rules. So Wendy's in Dubai does not sell The Baconator. So there's nothing really to pursue via the WTO. It's not a protectionism issue when domestic and foreign companies have to obey the same or similar restrictions, even if those restrictions are onerous.
paxys 4y ago
What's the complaint exactly? Unrestricted global free trade isn't something every country is expected to support or the WTO is meant to enforce. China can ban foreign companies and services from operating in their jurisdiction for any or no reason. Other countries are free to do the same.
ramblenode 4y ago
> China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market > If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China I've seen this meme floating around a lot recently and feel the need to add in some relevant history. Between the mid and late aughts Google, Facebook, and Twitter were all operating in China. Around this time the Chinese government got very serious about content filtering and imposed new restrictions on what could be shown/uploaded. There was a very strong backlash from the US side that American companies might be helping to build the Great Firewall. Many Americans were outraged and US politicians warned the companies not to build infrastructure that could be used for censorship. So the American companies acquiesced and either left the market or were banned (Twitter). I remember the outrage back then. It's like what I see now but with the facts reversed! Back then the concern was that American tech companies would export infrastructure that could be used by China for social control. Now it's "China won't allow American tech companies!". "We've always/never been at war with EastAsia." Kind of disturbing stuff. Watch the congressional hearing of the TikTok CEO and tell me that the powers who are pushing this care about facts.
- ecshafer 4y ago
  There has been a very large increase in aggressive talk vs China. It feels very strange considering these same areas were against economic warfare with China when Trump was in Charge, and I would be money were against the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars at some point. The "facts" don't matter. For what its worth, my memory is in line with yours, the back lash was absolutely on the US side.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Chinese containment has been a bipartisan agenda since the Obama presidency at least. It was the “trade war” being fought through used tariffs that certain people disliked and placing them on our allies that was overwhelmingly rejected.
- mustacheemperor 4y ago
  >or were banned (Twitter) So companies that refuse to build tools for compliance with China's unique censorship/control policies are not allowed in the country. Most American tech companies opted to leave voluntarily rather than implement these controls, and at least one that did not implement the controls or voluntarily leave was instead forcibly banned. I see the point you're making here, but at the same time, I think the situation as explained here can still be viewed as China not allowing American tech companies to operate in China the way those companies want to do business. Has the US provided ByteDance with an opportunity to become compliant with this country's requirements that it has opted against? That would seem very similar to what transpired with Twitter in China.
zarzavat 4y ago
WTO regulation of services is very limited. It mainly regulates the flow of goods. Unilateral domestic regulation or bilateral agreement with China are the only options.
bioemerl 4y ago
Because the WTO was and is a joke. They'd have sided with China who on their official books says "they can come back they just have to follow our laws", while in practice continuing to ban and restrict these companies regardless.

by abeppu 4y ago

alephnerd 4y ago

PRC has "developing nation" status in the WTO. This allows the PRC to get special and differential treatment in a number of IP and general trade related agreements.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Why can't the US throw it's weight around and get "developing nation" status as well. It certainly seems beneficial.

tzs 4y ago

If those companies were willing to obey the same rules that Chinese companies have to obey in China (censoring what the government tells them to censor, sharing personal data that the government asks for, sharing technology that the governments asks for) they could operate in China. It's not all that different from how US restaurant chains cannot operate in the UAE unless they take things off the menu that violate Islamic dietary rules. So Wendy's in Dubai does not sell The Baconator. So there's nothing really to pursue via the WTO. It's not a protectionism issue when domestic and foreign companies have to obey the same or similar restrictions, even if those restrictions are onerous.

paxys 4y ago

What's the complaint exactly? Unrestricted global free trade isn't something every country is expected to support or the WTO is meant to enforce. China can ban foreign companies and services from operating in their jurisdiction for any or no reason. Other countries are free to do the same.

ramblenode 4y ago

> China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market > If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China I've seen this meme floating around a lot recently and feel the need to add in some relevant history. Between the mid and late aughts Google, Facebook, and Twitter were all operating in China. Around this time the Chinese government got very serious about content filtering and imposed new restrictions on what could be shown/uploaded. There was a very strong backlash from the US side that American companies might be helping to build the Great Firewall. Many Americans were outraged and US politicians warned the companies not to build infrastructure that could be used for censorship. So the American companies acquiesced and either left the market or were banned (Twitter). I remember the outrage back then. It's like what I see now but with the facts reversed! Back then the concern was that American tech companies would export infrastructure that could be used by China for social control. Now it's "China won't allow American tech companies!". "We've always/never been at war with EastAsia." Kind of disturbing stuff. Watch the congressional hearing of the TikTok CEO and tell me that the powers who are pushing this care about facts.

ecshafer 4y ago
There has been a very large increase in aggressive talk vs China. It feels very strange considering these same areas were against economic warfare with China when Trump was in Charge, and I would be money were against the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars at some point. The "facts" don't matter. For what its worth, my memory is in line with yours, the back lash was absolutely on the US side.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Chinese containment has been a bipartisan agenda since the Obama presidency at least. It was the “trade war” being fought through used tariffs that certain people disliked and placing them on our allies that was overwhelmingly rejected.
mustacheemperor 4y ago
>or were banned (Twitter) So companies that refuse to build tools for compliance with China's unique censorship/control policies are not allowed in the country. Most American tech companies opted to leave voluntarily rather than implement these controls, and at least one that did not implement the controls or voluntarily leave was instead forcibly banned. I see the point you're making here, but at the same time, I think the situation as explained here can still be viewed as China not allowing American tech companies to operate in China the way those companies want to do business. Has the US provided ByteDance with an opportunity to become compliant with this country's requirements that it has opted against? That would seem very similar to what transpired with Twitter in China.

zarzavat 4y ago

WTO regulation of services is very limited. It mainly regulates the flow of goods. Unilateral domestic regulation or bilateral agreement with China are the only options.

bioemerl 4y ago

Because the WTO was and is a joke. They'd have sided with China who on their official books says "they can come back they just have to follow our laws", while in practice continuing to ban and restrict these companies regardless.