8 ms·

The correct way to position a ban on TikTok is by comparison with China's ban on USA websites. Something along the lines of "unless China gives reciprocal acce

• throwaway4good 4y ago
  US companies are allowed to operate social media services in China if they store data locally and follow Chinese law. Apple and Microsoft does this.
  • jjcon 4y ago
    Not even close to accurate. Not at all. Wikimedia has been trying to get China to allow a stripped down version of wikipedia in china for close to a decade now. It would be hosted in china and stripped of all political content deemed inappropriate by the CCP, still no.
    • est 4y ago
      China does require physical servers in China to operate user-generated-content websites and need staff oncall to censor content 24x7. I don't think wikimedia can do any of that. Yes it's a stupid totalitarian law but there's that.
    • 20after4 4y ago
      China already operate a mirror of wikipedia content, minus anything they decided to censor. As far as I could tell they have a reverse proxy that fetches, censors and serves wikipedia inside the great firewall.
  • CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > US companies are allowed to operate social media services in China if they store data locally and follow Chinese law. I guess the fair approach would be for the US to require Chinese companies' products to be actively and and preemptively censored by the US government. E.g. require the Global Times to publish editorials praising the US if it wants those editorials to be read in the country. Maybe the US should also pass laws to make forced tech transfers from Chinese companies the norm (I guess arguably that is what the whole "sell Tiktok" is really). Seems fair and reciprocal.
    • est 4y ago
      A fair and reciprocal move US can do is to require .edu and arxiv.org-likes websites to block China, and deny academic conferences to Chinese nationals.
    • bioemerl 4y ago
      I'd rather they just be banned than the United States government getting involved in the game of censorship. Speech should flow freely, and in order to do so the platforms on which we speak must not be controlled by hostile foreign governments. But if the global times wants to publish a pro china article in the United States, but they should be more than welcome to.
      • CogitoCogito 4y ago
        I'm not really a fan of direct open censorship of the US like this so I wouldn't personally support that over a ban either. My main point is just the US can simply act under the principle of trade reciprocity by saying if you don't allow our corporations (including news) operate within your country without undue interference, your corporations don't get to operate in ours. "Undue interference" would be defined by the US (or jointly by the US and China through some negotiation), but it wouldn't be just China that decides since well this is US legislation we're talking about that. Nothing there would go against the principles of free trade or even free speech really. China would be free to open up if they want to engage in those activities. But if China didn't want that, then it wouldn't mean that the US is somehow acting rashly or wrong by reciprocating economically.
• jstanley 4y ago
  > China to have unfettered access to the US web audience. This is a really backwards way of putting it.
• est 4y ago
  Netflix, Hulu, HBO website can be accessed in China, but they just don't provide any content by geo-blocking. They need a license to hosting shows. Azure defintely operates in China https://www.microsoft.com/china/azure/index-en.html https://www.microsoft.com/china/azure/index-en.html Twitch works from time to time depends on which unfortunate AWS IP address it streams on. Zoom isolating China as a standalone market Apple iCloud has the local version For Steam, there's a HUGE Chinese player base, but steamcommunity.com is blocked Some of the websites you mentioned were "collateral damange" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_freedom
  • iamflimflam1 4y ago
    Just as a nitpik - there are Azure regions in China. But it's complicated. Microsoft Azure operated by 21Vianet (Azure China) is a physically separated instance of cloud services located in China. It's independently operated and transacted by Shanghai Blue Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. ("21Vianet"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beijing 21Vianet Broadband Data Center Co., Ltd..
    • est 4y ago
      Every cloud provider is like that. No matter CN ones or US ones. In fact every book, game, movie is like that. There's always a special standalone CN version.
    • blackhaz 4y ago
      The New Azure
    • rfoo 4y ago
      The real Azure and AWS is accessible in China, too. In fact, that's the easiest reliable way to bootstrap from "I'm in China and have no censorship-circumvent tools" to accessing the real Internet. Just go to Azure or AWS and get a VM.
• raxxorraxor 4y ago
  This is just leveraging animosity towards China for access to user communication that would otherwise be protested. This is about access to user information and everything else is of little relevance.
• CoolGuySteve 4y ago
  So what if China blocks apps. Our freedoms are what make us different from them and the first amendment is the most important of those freedoms. If US persons are truly helping TikTok engage in espionage then arrest them, it’s already illegal.
  • worrycue 4y ago
    > Our freedoms are what make us different from them Don't the US gov already have the power to arbitrarily sanction and restrict trade with foreign countries? e.g. You cannot sell to nor buy from people in North Korea. Banning all social media platforms from China seem like a vary minor extension of that power.
    • anoonmoose 4y ago
      Many people already think that power is mis-used and/or abused and would want to see it pared back rather than extended, myself included.
      • noduerme 4y ago
        There's an argument that foreign policy should override domestic politics when dealing with adversarial powers we elect our officials to stand up against. It's not a popular view, because few Americans pay attention to or care about foreign affairs. Under the condition where a foreign power has broadly infiltrated our social systems with a Trojan horse, I think there are rational ways to preserve the First Amendment while targeting the offending social/information virus. This law isn't that, but it probably won't pass and large parts of it would definitely would be struck down by the courts if it did. Whatever "many people already think," though, it's the responsibility of our government to defend the country from adversaries. That should be done in a way thay doesn't undermine the rights of Americans... but it has to be done or those rights would cease to exist. TikTok harvesting data and manipulating opinion from a foreign throne is incompatible with having a populace free and unencumbered to make wise and rational decisions to self-govern. Without which all other speech disappears.
    • 4y ago
• somenameforme 4y ago
  TikTok is just being used as an excuse to grab power, because this bill will do immeasurably more than allow the government to ban TikTok. It's quite similar to how terrorism was used as an excuse to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act did little to nothing to ensure society's security, but gave the government an immense range of powers that, now more than decades later, have still not been entirely rescinded. And this bill, unlike the Patriot Act, lacks even the pretext of being temporary. This will also set the stage for even more draconian actions. Obama passing a law allowing for indefinite detention, including of US citizens, without trial or even legal representation [1] would never, in a million years, have been accepted in more sane times. But people lose their mind when the government rallies up enough fear, which is then actively exploited to seize even more powers. This bill will directly lead to the development of the "Great Firewall of America" as it's the only practical way to engage censorship on the scale that the bill envisages, and it also grants the Secretary endless powers to carry out such. This is a bill is one of the purest embodiments of the absolute decline of America, and everything it, and we, once stood for. Becoming China is not how you compete against China. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention#United_St...
  • iamerroragent 4y ago
    > [1] "The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism", authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorizati... AUMF: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Mil...
    • eru 4y ago
• HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  I don't think Biden thinks he needs any excuse/positioning as far as the Chinese are concerned. The real issue is here at home in the US - TikTok is insanely popular, and additionally there's a massive amount of overreach in this bill - they want to be able to ban VPN usage etc as well. Biden is not very popular to begin with, and doesn't need to shoot himself in the foot like this. Unfortunately he seems to have talked himself into a bit of a corner.
  • mrguyorama 4y ago
    I was all gung ho with the idea of banning tiktok, I think the national security concern is legit. I really didn't want the PRC to have a finger on the recommendation algorithm for an app that is super popular and is all about getting fed a steady stream of whatever. But this act is not that. I don't support this.
• indymike 4y ago
  > Something along the lines of "unless China gives reciprocal access to all the banned websites listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... then we cannot permit China to have access to US web audiences". This is the issue with China. One-way trade doesn't work.
• Entinel 4y ago
  This is not about Tiktok at all. Focusing on it is missing the point
• tzs 4y ago
  How many of those sites are willing to comply with the same requirements and restrictions that China places on domestic sites (such as heavy censorship, giving the government access to nearly all data they have on their uses, giving the government access to their technology)?
• scotty79 4y ago
  The symmetry is that with this act US effectively becomes China from the point of view of internet enabled citizens of US. 20 years in prison for accessing restricted website.
• fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Our freedom is worth more than money. We don’t need to engage in censorship to be just as bad as the other oppressive regimes to stick a thumb in their eye for reducing our revenue from their citizens. Don’t forget, this isn’t banning unsafe toys or imposing tariffs on stress balls, this is banning information and deciding what thought is acceptable based on the nationality of the provider of information. Do we want to erect the Great Wall in the United States? How technically would we achieve this without enabling broad scale censorship? The law isn’t specific about TikTok - which means it opens the door to broad censorship based on political interest if there controlling party. Is sticking a thumb in chinas eye for reducing Google’s EPS by $0.01/share worth that?
  • edgyquant 4y ago
    This is not censorship. Deciding what content was allowed on tic tok would be censorship, banning is not that. People are free to view and express themselves on a myriad of other platforms not owned by a horrid adversary currently attacking us from all directions. Tic Tok has to go, I don’t want people near me using it so China can have a working graph of Americans at all time. They’re already famous for using 0-days in apps. This is just a common sense move I can’t believe any honest tech person would disagree with.
    • fnordpiglet 4y ago
      What makes you think this is the only source of that information and that Google and others who also collect this information aren’t providing it to whomever discreetly pays for it? Why is TikTok different than say Zoom? What do you think “China” is going to do with the location of every 13 year old girl? Send targeted kill bots to do something a bomb can do better? Or does it just creep you out that someone other than Google, Facebook, Palantir, and their customers from around the world has such information? Maybe the problem is pervasive spying by anyone? If TikTok were doing anything criminal I would agree. They aren’t. And if they are there’s already methods of dealing with it. The content and medium of communication and forum of TikTok isn’t available anywhere else. I see this as no different than oppressive regimes everywhere banning Wikipedia, FB, etc. I’m shocked any honest tech person can’t see this is establishing a Great Wall in the US.
• eru 4y ago
  This reads like 'I will only stop hitting my head against a wall, if you also stop hitting your head against a wall.' Unilateral free trade is optimal already. Even without reciprocation. (Reciprocation is great. But not necessary.)
  • bumby 4y ago
    >Unilateral free trade is optimal already Can you elaborate on your definition of 'optimal', especially in the context of the law in the article that is trying to address trade that 'poses an unacceptable risk to national security'?
    • tenebrisalietum 4y ago
      We get cheap electronics? Works well for commodities and physical items. Software/services are different - especially services where the real asset is user profile data.
      • bumby 4y ago
        I think both takes levy artificial constraints on what gets considered. I.e., it’s only an economically “optimal” and may not be a “societal” optimal
        • eru 4y ago
          What is 'societal'?
          • bumby 4y ago
            “Relating to society or social relations” For example, you probably don’t pick your spouse or decide to have kids based solely on their economic contributions to your life, but are rather trying to optimize across more dimensions, including social considerations.
            • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• dcolkitt 4y ago
  Just because China does something to their citizens (denies them access to foreign tech products that they'd otherwise enjoy), doesn't mean its rational for the US to do the same same thing to its own citizens. Consumers benefit from having access to a globally competitive array of products. Including tech products. I wish Chinese consumers could as well, but just because they don't doesn't mean that US consumers should also suffer.
• Convolutional 4y ago
  You left out Marxists.org (on that list), which contains the writings of Marx, Lenin and Mao. It was blocked for years and even had DoS attacks on it coming from the PRC.
• elif 4y ago
  Yes attack the great firewall with another great firewall. Worked great for nuclear nonproliferation...
• PlantsArePeople 4y ago
  [dead]
• Georgelemental 4y ago
  GitHub is not blocked in China. It was once, very briefly, but the Chinese software industry needs it so the ban didn't stick.
• ramblenode 4y ago
  > It is unequal and unfair and anticompetitive for China to ban hundreds of US based websites I keep seeing this claim posted, and I feel the need to add in some relevant history about why most of the companies on that list aren't doing business in China (tldr; Americans don't want to allow American companies to comply with Chinese laws). 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). Reciprocity in trade is important, but it has to be viewed within the context of national laws. American companies had their hands tied and couldn't comply with Chinese law which is why they don't operate anymore. TikTok has so far complied with American laws and spent something on the order of $1 billion USD for a data center in Texas whose only buinsess value was to placate the American government. If enough Americans and lawmakers decide that it's ok for Facebook to build content filters and take down speech critical of the government then there might still be a future for Facebook in China.
• Imtiredofpassw 4y ago
  All of these sites can be accessed from China using a VPN, and using a VPN in China to access these sites won't result in 20 years of jail time and up to 1000000$ fine