4 ms·

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.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      > the US can simply act under the principle of trade reciprocity by saying This is basically a ban, because there is no world that China agrees to let their firewall down. Or it's effectively nothing if China argues "they just have to follow our rules". And then you have to implement the actual ban, which will lead to this exact situation all over again.
      - 4y ago

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.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > the US can simply act under the principle of trade reciprocity by saying This is basically a ban, because there is no world that China agrees to let their firewall down. Or it's effectively nothing if China argues "they just have to follow our rules". And then you have to implement the actual ban, which will lead to this exact situation all over again.
    - 4y ago