4 ms·

> They already banned Facebook with a straight face a long time ago Zuckerberg himself said in his 2019 speech that they don't operate in China because "we cou

> They already banned Facebook with a straight face a long time ago Zuckerberg himself said in his 2019 speech that they don't operate in China because "we could never come to agreement on what it would take for us to operate there." American tech companies absolutely can operate in China if they agree to abide by local censorship rules (like Bing is doing for China, like Google was going to do with Dragonfly, or like YouTube is doing for India). Facebook also has a substantial ad business in China [1] > And insist that western companies give joint ownership of subsidiaries doing business in China to a Chinese company. According to the Department of Commerce (https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=China-Establishing-an-Office https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=China-Establishing-a...), > A large majority of new foreign investments in China are WFOEs [wholly foreign owned enterprises], rather than JVs. As Chinese legal entities, WFOEs experience greater independence than ROs, are allowed exclusive control over carrying out business activities while abiding by Chinese law and are granted intellectual and technological rights. Also (https://arc-group.com/china-company-setup/ https://arc-group.com/china-company-setup/): > WFOE refers to a limited liability company that is 100% invested, owned by foreign investors, and independently operated. Almost 60% of foreign-owned companies are WFOEs, making it the most adopted business type. Famous multinational companies such as Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and General Electric are all examples of WFOEs. [1] > Facebook sells more than $5 billion a year worth of ad space to Chinese businesses and government agencies looking to promote their messages abroad, analysts estimate. That makes China Facebook's biggest country for revenue after the United States, which delivered $24.1 billion in advertising sales in 2018 (https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/07/facebook-makes-a-new-ad-sales-push-in-china.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/07/facebook-makes-a-new-ad-...)

a_random_canuck 3y ago
> while abiding by Chinese law This includes Chinese national security law which is far more invasive than the US law. The party can order a company to do anything they want, or make any physical places they want available to them, and everything is kept under permanent gag order.
- aragonite 3y ago
  > The U.S. government can also demand user information from online providers through National Security Letters, which can both require providers to turn over user information and gag them from speaking about it > By using NSLs, the FBI can directly order companies to turn over information about their customers and then gag the companies from telling anyone that they did so. Because the process is secret, and because even the companies can’t tell if specific NSLs violate the law, the process is ripe for abuse. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
  - st380752143 3y ago
    However, you know this thing called NSL at least. In China, this performed because only someone wants.
  - jml7c5 3y ago
    It's worth noting a very, very large difference: the US cannot compel companies to build things. They can secretly obtain some information, but they can't secretly require backdoors, tracking tools, etc.
    - MassPikeMike 3y ago
      What do you call the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act? https://www.fcc.gov/calea https://www.fcc.gov/calea
- adolph 3y ago
  >> while abiding by Chinese law > This includes Chinese national security law which is far more invasive than the US law Does anyone have links and translations or shall we all just conjecture in a fact free way? All the above might be true or might not, but there isn’t a way to evaluate the claims.
nradov 3y ago
It is disingenuous for you to refer to "Chinese law". The reality is that there is no rule of law or independent judiciary in China. The law is whatever order CCP officials issue.

a_random_canuck 3y ago

> while abiding by Chinese law This includes Chinese national security law which is far more invasive than the US law. The party can order a company to do anything they want, or make any physical places they want available to them, and everything is kept under permanent gag order.

aragonite 3y ago
> The U.S. government can also demand user information from online providers through National Security Letters, which can both require providers to turn over user information and gag them from speaking about it > By using NSLs, the FBI can directly order companies to turn over information about their customers and then gag the companies from telling anyone that they did so. Because the process is secret, and because even the companies can’t tell if specific NSLs violate the law, the process is ripe for abuse. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
- st380752143 3y ago
  However, you know this thing called NSL at least. In China, this performed because only someone wants.
- jml7c5 3y ago
  It's worth noting a very, very large difference: the US cannot compel companies to build things. They can secretly obtain some information, but they can't secretly require backdoors, tracking tools, etc.
  - MassPikeMike 3y ago
    What do you call the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act? https://www.fcc.gov/calea https://www.fcc.gov/calea
adolph 3y ago
>> while abiding by Chinese law > This includes Chinese national security law which is far more invasive than the US law Does anyone have links and translations or shall we all just conjecture in a fact free way? All the above might be true or might not, but there isn’t a way to evaluate the claims.

nradov 3y ago

It is disingenuous for you to refer to "Chinese law". The reality is that there is no rule of law or independent judiciary in China. The law is whatever order CCP officials issue.