5 ms·

Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC... all they have to do is follow PRC regulations. Literally why FB and Google had internal project

Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC... all they have to do is follow PRC regulations. Literally why FB and Google had internal projects to engineer compliant products to re-enter PRC market, but killed due to internal dissent. The narrative that PRC bans US platforms was always cope. Google pulled out because they didn't like dissidents being hacked, when operationally and eventually they should be cooperating on data sharing at PRC gov requests like in US. FB/Twitter got booted post 2009 minority riots for not complying to filtering (censorship) requirements on inciting violence that every PRC platform had built large and onerously expensive moderation teams to fulfill. Simply wasn't worth the headache for what little market share they had, and it wasn't until western platforms got hammered into improving their own moderation pipelines due to social media incited violence that they started thinking bout re-entering PRC. There's a reason Microsoft outlasted them for almost a decade until they also said fuck this to regulation and optics costs. Sure the game is rigged for domestic incumbants, it's not PRC's fault FB/Google employees killed efforts to move back into PRC, or that the SV was drunk on free speech (cheap moderation) until western society realized (but won't admit) PRC regulators were prescient. Forward to today, somehow TikTok operating in US while compliant to US laws managed outcompeted US platforms. At this point even putting the finger down on some sort of joint venture like Oracle proposal, like how icloud in PRC is under domestic management (a very PRC solution) isn't enough to tip scales back to domestic incumbents. Hence bill to ban, or divest, which to be clear, even PRC hasn't resorted to because they already had regulations to limit influence / scope of US platforms. Playing "fair" is not viable anymore because TikToks is too big, as is the associated risk, so nothing left but nuclear option because TikTok won playing fair.

gman83 4y ago
But China actively blocks all US social media companies, right? The social media companies aren't the ones blocking Chinese users from joining. They just don't operate any offices in China.
- jpgvm 4y ago
  They aren't prevented from entering the market but their existing products are banned because they don't abide by PRC censorship and data sharing requirements. The post you are replying to explains this in detail. Google, Facebook, etc all either had products in China or planned products in China but all voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. I imagine low market share vs domestic services was probably the largest reason. Remember that as soon as you release a service in the West a Chinese clone will spring forth almost instantly. That clone will be much more Chinese then your eventual adaption and as such will you likely struggle to compete with it. Worse yet said clone is probably built by either Alibaba or Tencent both of which have armies of extremely smart engineers, near unlimited cash to sink into new ventures and a near duopoly on the ecosystems necessary to thrive in China. At the end of the day the Chinese market is just incredibly tough and Western companies (perhaps rightly) don't think it's worth the effort.
  - insane_dreamer 4y ago
    > Google, Facebook, etc all either had products in China or planned products in China but all voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. I imagine low market share vs domestic services was probably the largest reason. No, Google withdrew because it refused to continue censoring results (and this was back before censorship become much more pervasive, in the 2010s). It wasn't a monopoly like in the US but had a good 30% market share (which in China is a lot). FB, which started later, never even got started in China because censorship of individual posts -- even worse than censoring search results -- would have caused an uproar with FB's user base in the US/Europe.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    This isn't really true though... Companies that operate in China need to be run by a chinese national. So the government forces companies to create a chinese shell even if they don't have any chinese executives they like. This is how the ARM craziness happened where a rouge executive took over the company for year.
bigmattystyles 4y ago
Oi - where to start - let's go one by one. >> Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC I do not believe that the preferred platforms of the CCP, owned and operated by the same people, would not be favored in China. There is no open or transparent lobbying in China. Rather, overnight, someone from the CCP can decide that your platform should be shut down and your employees harassed, arrested and/or prosecuted. Yes, the market is huge, but why would any western company take that chance. For all its flaws, the US doesn't have these issues to this level. The TikTok debate is happening relatively slowly and a lot of it in the open (So our politicians can showboat, but still). TikTok also has access to the best lawyers, lobbyists, as well as grounds for appeal. Those in power will also be politically assailed by their opponents on behalf of those under 35 for shutting down their favored platform. People could conceivably lose office for the decision. >> Forward to today, somehow TikTok operating in US while compliant to US laws managed outcompeted US platforms. No argument here - TikTok has done amazing and has played by the rules (though if you have pile of nearly infinite money from a powerful government, you can do a lot). I'd argue that realpolitik, is alive and well, always has been and always will be. TikTok can both influence (which I'm less worried about thanks to the other avenues of free speech) but TikTok can also collect and retain the moral and legal trespass of the young for decades to then use it as blackmail when they are the ones seeking positions of power. You could argue the same for all the other socials, and I think their data retention is what should really be limited, but they are at least within the confines of a legal system, that yes, has flaws, but is open enough. I'm not naive enough to believe the US is devoid of corruption, backroom deals, people whose rights are denied or trampled on etc. But compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate. Personally, I think TikTok has a first amendment right to exist regardless of who owns it. It's the data retention that really worries me, and unless you count data as property (which I could be convinced of), there is not right to data retention.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  > realpolitik, is alive and well ... > compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate Really the crux of issue for me. By all means ban TikTok, Huawei, constrain PRC chips, but let's chalk it up to sensible realpolitik than narrative over morals/frameworks. Like CIA basically bribed their way to control promotions throughout CCP throughout 90s-00s, hence Xi crackdwon on foreign NGOs, and dismantled PRC CIA networks. If US fears that's a risk vector for tiktok, and US society laws too open/fragile to handle even JV configurations like in PRC, then sensible people should accept that to ban TikTok, US has to adopt harsher methods than even PRC. > would not be favored in China I specifically highlighted PRC _would_ have tip scales towards domestic incumbents. Like US is doing now against TikTok. But PRC didn't have to do much, western platforms never really got localization right, Google stole Sogou pinyin so input didn't suck, Youtube never broke top10 streaming, Amazon was unimpressive relative to other ecommerce. PRC companies that focused solely on domestic market outcompeted western platforms where PRC sideshow. Then exported Tiktok that flourished in US because it's fashioned after Douyin style feel good content due to survivorship bias of PRC censorship. > would any western company take that chance Ask the 10,000s western companies that operate in PRC fine for 30+ years. Or why is twitter in India despite indian gov threatening to arrest employees? Or why western platforms in Vietnam cede to VCP censorship requests. Many have grown enough to have no scruples working with "shady" governments now. Hence me highlighting western platforms during 00s-10s had SV pride/optics/ethos considerations of the time that made today's routine acquiescing to foreign security interests unlikely then. As for why take that chance, because PRC still large market that was worth friction cost, until geopolitics made it not. > US doesn't have these issues to this level IMO functionally it does, all the lobbying and connections in the world isn't going to overcome interests of motivated national security state. US domestic sentiment has little effect on actual foreign / security policy. US had to ram through CHIPs act / October "surprise" without much industry consultation / ability to disrupt because ultimately US just comparably as capable as PRC in terms of overnight responses. Dressing it up with demographic process theatre isn't particularly convincing considering how many strategic industries US is home too, industries like in PRC that exist because state was precient enough to keep competition out/down.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
> data sharing at PRC gov requests like in US. No, it's nothing like the US. PRC actively censors all social media in China (the social media companies do it themselves based on keywords provided by the government). > it's not PRC's fault FB/Google employees killed efforts to move back into PRC, or that the SV was drunk on free speech (cheap moderation) until western society realized (but won't admit) PRC regulators were prescient Moderation on Western platforms is nothing like the censorship that takes place on PRC platforms, and equating them is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Not to mention that government censorship is much more problematic even than company defacto cenorship (where if you don't like Twitter you can move to Mastodon) since gov censorship is absolute.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  I didn't say kind of censorship is the same, nor should they be. I said US platforms who want to operate in PRC should comply with PRC national security interests REGARDLESS of how it's "worse". It's happening in Vietnam and other highly censorial countries now without much issue. If didn't happen in PRC before because they didn't want to eat the cost. What's moderated maybe different, but how it's moderated now is the same. US followed PRC platforms to build actual teams to "guide" content, PRC has extra step of formal content blacklist, no different than wiping out mass shooting videos. It's an expensive man powered team trying to ensure platform stays out of trouble. It's now technically / functionally / economically comparable, hence the comment about how western platforms started exploring ways back into PRC market AFTER they implemented PRC like moderation systems. The comment isn't a debate about which censorship system is "superior". It's simply acknowledging US platforms got blocked because they couldn't compete on PRC rules that PRC companies had to follow.

gman83 4y ago

But China actively blocks all US social media companies, right? The social media companies aren't the ones blocking Chinese users from joining. They just don't operate any offices in China.

jpgvm 4y ago
They aren't prevented from entering the market but their existing products are banned because they don't abide by PRC censorship and data sharing requirements. The post you are replying to explains this in detail. Google, Facebook, etc all either had products in China or planned products in China but all voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. I imagine low market share vs domestic services was probably the largest reason. Remember that as soon as you release a service in the West a Chinese clone will spring forth almost instantly. That clone will be much more Chinese then your eventual adaption and as such will you likely struggle to compete with it. Worse yet said clone is probably built by either Alibaba or Tencent both of which have armies of extremely smart engineers, near unlimited cash to sink into new ventures and a near duopoly on the ecosystems necessary to thrive in China. At the end of the day the Chinese market is just incredibly tough and Western companies (perhaps rightly) don't think it's worth the effort.
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  > Google, Facebook, etc all either had products in China or planned products in China but all voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. I imagine low market share vs domestic services was probably the largest reason. No, Google withdrew because it refused to continue censoring results (and this was back before censorship become much more pervasive, in the 2010s). It wasn't a monopoly like in the US but had a good 30% market share (which in China is a lot). FB, which started later, never even got started in China because censorship of individual posts -- even worse than censoring search results -- would have caused an uproar with FB's user base in the US/Europe.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  This isn't really true though... Companies that operate in China need to be run by a chinese national. So the government forces companies to create a chinese shell even if they don't have any chinese executives they like. This is how the ARM craziness happened where a rouge executive took over the company for year.

bigmattystyles 4y ago

Oi - where to start - let's go one by one. >> Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC I do not believe that the preferred platforms of the CCP, owned and operated by the same people, would not be favored in China. There is no open or transparent lobbying in China. Rather, overnight, someone from the CCP can decide that your platform should be shut down and your employees harassed, arrested and/or prosecuted. Yes, the market is huge, but why would any western company take that chance. For all its flaws, the US doesn't have these issues to this level. The TikTok debate is happening relatively slowly and a lot of it in the open (So our politicians can showboat, but still). TikTok also has access to the best lawyers, lobbyists, as well as grounds for appeal. Those in power will also be politically assailed by their opponents on behalf of those under 35 for shutting down their favored platform. People could conceivably lose office for the decision. >> Forward to today, somehow TikTok operating in US while compliant to US laws managed outcompeted US platforms. No argument here - TikTok has done amazing and has played by the rules (though if you have pile of nearly infinite money from a powerful government, you can do a lot). I'd argue that realpolitik, is alive and well, always has been and always will be. TikTok can both influence (which I'm less worried about thanks to the other avenues of free speech) but TikTok can also collect and retain the moral and legal trespass of the young for decades to then use it as blackmail when they are the ones seeking positions of power. You could argue the same for all the other socials, and I think their data retention is what should really be limited, but they are at least within the confines of a legal system, that yes, has flaws, but is open enough. I'm not naive enough to believe the US is devoid of corruption, backroom deals, people whose rights are denied or trampled on etc. But compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate. Personally, I think TikTok has a first amendment right to exist regardless of who owns it. It's the data retention that really worries me, and unless you count data as property (which I could be convinced of), there is not right to data retention.

dirtyid 4y ago
> realpolitik, is alive and well ... > compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate Really the crux of issue for me. By all means ban TikTok, Huawei, constrain PRC chips, but let's chalk it up to sensible realpolitik than narrative over morals/frameworks. Like CIA basically bribed their way to control promotions throughout CCP throughout 90s-00s, hence Xi crackdwon on foreign NGOs, and dismantled PRC CIA networks. If US fears that's a risk vector for tiktok, and US society laws too open/fragile to handle even JV configurations like in PRC, then sensible people should accept that to ban TikTok, US has to adopt harsher methods than even PRC. > would not be favored in China I specifically highlighted PRC _would_ have tip scales towards domestic incumbents. Like US is doing now against TikTok. But PRC didn't have to do much, western platforms never really got localization right, Google stole Sogou pinyin so input didn't suck, Youtube never broke top10 streaming, Amazon was unimpressive relative to other ecommerce. PRC companies that focused solely on domestic market outcompeted western platforms where PRC sideshow. Then exported Tiktok that flourished in US because it's fashioned after Douyin style feel good content due to survivorship bias of PRC censorship. > would any western company take that chance Ask the 10,000s western companies that operate in PRC fine for 30+ years. Or why is twitter in India despite indian gov threatening to arrest employees? Or why western platforms in Vietnam cede to VCP censorship requests. Many have grown enough to have no scruples working with "shady" governments now. Hence me highlighting western platforms during 00s-10s had SV pride/optics/ethos considerations of the time that made today's routine acquiescing to foreign security interests unlikely then. As for why take that chance, because PRC still large market that was worth friction cost, until geopolitics made it not. > US doesn't have these issues to this level IMO functionally it does, all the lobbying and connections in the world isn't going to overcome interests of motivated national security state. US domestic sentiment has little effect on actual foreign / security policy. US had to ram through CHIPs act / October "surprise" without much industry consultation / ability to disrupt because ultimately US just comparably as capable as PRC in terms of overnight responses. Dressing it up with demographic process theatre isn't particularly convincing considering how many strategic industries US is home too, industries like in PRC that exist because state was precient enough to keep competition out/down.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

> data sharing at PRC gov requests like in US. No, it's nothing like the US. PRC actively censors all social media in China (the social media companies do it themselves based on keywords provided by the government). > it's not PRC's fault FB/Google employees killed efforts to move back into PRC, or that the SV was drunk on free speech (cheap moderation) until western society realized (but won't admit) PRC regulators were prescient Moderation on Western platforms is nothing like the censorship that takes place on PRC platforms, and equating them is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Not to mention that government censorship is much more problematic even than company defacto cenorship (where if you don't like Twitter you can move to Mastodon) since gov censorship is absolute.

dirtyid 4y ago
I didn't say kind of censorship is the same, nor should they be. I said US platforms who want to operate in PRC should comply with PRC national security interests REGARDLESS of how it's "worse". It's happening in Vietnam and other highly censorial countries now without much issue. If didn't happen in PRC before because they didn't want to eat the cost. What's moderated maybe different, but how it's moderated now is the same. US followed PRC platforms to build actual teams to "guide" content, PRC has extra step of formal content blacklist, no different than wiping out mass shooting videos. It's an expensive man powered team trying to ensure platform stays out of trouble. It's now technically / functionally / economically comparable, hence the comment about how western platforms started exploring ways back into PRC market AFTER they implemented PRC like moderation systems. The comment isn't a debate about which censorship system is "superior". It's simply acknowledging US platforms got blocked because they couldn't compete on PRC rules that PRC companies had to follow.