4 ms·

There are various US newspapers that don't show any content in the EU because they don't want to comply with EU privacy laws. These companies are free to comply

by snehk 3y ago

There are various US newspapers that don't show any content in the EU because they don't want to comply with EU privacy laws. These companies are free to comply with the laws and can then show their content. Same with Facebook in China. Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US.

hn_acker 3y ago
> Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US. I don't think that your analogy is comparable to the prospective US TikTok ban (ban with the alternative option of a forced sale). In the case of TikTok, the US law will be "if you want to do business with people in the US, don't let a major stakeholder of your company be in a foreign adversary country". That might sound reasonable in some contexts (e.g. computer hardware), but a one-size-fits-all rule that makes a broad assumption of "controlled by foreign adversary = national security threat" (resembles a Great Firewall of China and) overlooks rights that US citizens have to voluntarily use certain services from other countries (especially social media services because of the First Amendment).

by snehk 3y ago

hn_acker 3y ago

> Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US. I don't think that your analogy is comparable to the prospective US TikTok ban (ban with the alternative option of a forced sale). In the case of TikTok, the US law will be "if you want to do business with people in the US, don't let a major stakeholder of your company be in a foreign adversary country". That might sound reasonable in some contexts (e.g. computer hardware), but a one-size-fits-all rule that makes a broad assumption of "controlled by foreign adversary = national security threat" (resembles a Great Firewall of China and) overlooks rights that US citizens have to voluntarily use certain services from other countries (especially social media services because of the First Amendment).