4 ms·

In the EU all social media companies have to comply to the same rules. This is normal "regulation". China also regulates all social media companies on whether

by hmm37 2y ago

In the EU all social media companies have to comply to the same rules. This is normal "regulation". China also regulates all social media companies on whether or not they are willing to censor speech or not. This is also called normal "regulation" as it applies to all social media companies. No single social media is selected out and discriminated against. On the other hand, US is regulating Tiktok AND pretty much only Tiktok, which is breaking no laws except now this new one where part of its ownership is Chinese. This wouldn't look as farcical if the US forced facebook, twitter, etc. to comply with privacy issues, etc.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
The US is requiring social media to not be owned by China. That seems to be a consistent rule for all companies.
- mrtksn 2y ago
  Can't wait the not to be owned by USA/EU/UK rules spread out like wildfire. It will be especially interesting when Trump admin starts getting its way next year. The USA fucked up badly by pivoting into being fake China.
- hmm37 2y ago
  Yes. It's the Chinese exclusion act all over again. We already been through this historically. Essentially a ban on race/ethnicity vs practice.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Chinese exclusion act all over again...a ban on race/ethnicity vs practice This is an incredibly bad-faith comparison. People of Chinese descent aren't being discriminated in any way by this bill. In the same way China blocking Google isn't an act of racism, this is putting restrictions on a foreign state which is acting belligerentlyt towards us. We required American companies to stop doing business with the Nazis when we went to war with them. (Though not a moment sooner.) That wasn't racism, it was strategic sense.
    - hmm37 2y ago
      It's not a bad-faith comparison at all. There's nothing about Tiktok's practice that is necessarily illegal as it follows basically the same business model as all other social media companies. It is only that it has a Chinese shareholder amongst its shareholders, and therefore must be ban unless this Chinese shareholder sells his share. We aren't at war with China, nor are we close yet. Although it seems like people do want to move closer to a war and seem to hype China as some existential threat to the USA, and therefore try to justify such ideas. This is despite the fact that historically China has pretty much never used its navy to try to attack another nation except for basically (Japan), and that was when the Mongols had seized control of the nation about 800 years ago. China has throughout history basically repudiated the Mongols' methods and violence, and the Mongol ruled dynasty was considered one of the shortest in Chinese history because of this. Moreover one of the reasons why the Mongols did not succeed in conquering Japan was because the Chinese did not give the Mongols seafaring ships, and the keels were too flat to be stable in the ocean, despite the fact that China did have the technology for stable ships. This meant that the Chinese ships that were sent to Japan to attack easily capsized and the Mongol soldiers on them drown. China blocking Google isn't China blocking Google because it is a US company. China is blocking due to the fact that Google doesn't censor. When Google tried to reenter the Chinese market, it was blocked and criticized from TWO different sources (1) Various US government officials and congressmen; (2) Google's own employees. Google acceded to pressure from the US, not China.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > only that it has a Chinese shareholder amongst its shareholders, and therefore must be ban unless this Chinese shareholder sells his share The issue is the Chinese state's involvement. (TikTok's CEO perjuring himself about this didn't help [1].) > We aren't at war with China They are, under U.S. law, a foreign adversary [2]. If we were at war with China, we'd be talking about sanctioning ByteDance. Not merely removing it from app stores if it can't find a non-Chinese buyer. > historically China has pretty much never used its navy to try to attack another nation except for basically (Japan) Historically America has never used its space force to attack anyone. Meanwhile, China literally invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951 [3] and continues to use no uncertain terms about its intentions in respect of Taiwan [4]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tiktok-creators-data-security-china/?sh=2a6d1e470488 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tikt... [2] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People's_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo... [4] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-drops-peaceful-reunification-reference-taiwan-raises-defence-spending-by-2024-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-drops-peaceful-reu...

by hmm37 2y ago

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

The US is requiring social media to not be owned by China. That seems to be a consistent rule for all companies.

mrtksn 2y ago
Can't wait the not to be owned by USA/EU/UK rules spread out like wildfire. It will be especially interesting when Trump admin starts getting its way next year. The USA fucked up badly by pivoting into being fake China.
hmm37 2y ago
Yes. It's the Chinese exclusion act all over again. We already been through this historically. Essentially a ban on race/ethnicity vs practice.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Chinese exclusion act all over again...a ban on race/ethnicity vs practice This is an incredibly bad-faith comparison. People of Chinese descent aren't being discriminated in any way by this bill. In the same way China blocking Google isn't an act of racism, this is putting restrictions on a foreign state which is acting belligerentlyt towards us. We required American companies to stop doing business with the Nazis when we went to war with them. (Though not a moment sooner.) That wasn't racism, it was strategic sense.
  - hmm37 2y ago
    It's not a bad-faith comparison at all. There's nothing about Tiktok's practice that is necessarily illegal as it follows basically the same business model as all other social media companies. It is only that it has a Chinese shareholder amongst its shareholders, and therefore must be ban unless this Chinese shareholder sells his share. We aren't at war with China, nor are we close yet. Although it seems like people do want to move closer to a war and seem to hype China as some existential threat to the USA, and therefore try to justify such ideas. This is despite the fact that historically China has pretty much never used its navy to try to attack another nation except for basically (Japan), and that was when the Mongols had seized control of the nation about 800 years ago. China has throughout history basically repudiated the Mongols' methods and violence, and the Mongol ruled dynasty was considered one of the shortest in Chinese history because of this. Moreover one of the reasons why the Mongols did not succeed in conquering Japan was because the Chinese did not give the Mongols seafaring ships, and the keels were too flat to be stable in the ocean, despite the fact that China did have the technology for stable ships. This meant that the Chinese ships that were sent to Japan to attack easily capsized and the Mongol soldiers on them drown. China blocking Google isn't China blocking Google because it is a US company. China is blocking due to the fact that Google doesn't censor. When Google tried to reenter the Chinese market, it was blocked and criticized from TWO different sources (1) Various US government officials and congressmen; (2) Google's own employees. Google acceded to pressure from the US, not China.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > only that it has a Chinese shareholder amongst its shareholders, and therefore must be ban unless this Chinese shareholder sells his share The issue is the Chinese state's involvement. (TikTok's CEO perjuring himself about this didn't help [1].) > We aren't at war with China They are, under U.S. law, a foreign adversary [2]. If we were at war with China, we'd be talking about sanctioning ByteDance. Not merely removing it from app stores if it can't find a non-Chinese buyer. > historically China has pretty much never used its navy to try to attack another nation except for basically (Japan) Historically America has never used its space force to attack anyone. Meanwhile, China literally invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951 [3] and continues to use no uncertain terms about its intentions in respect of Taiwan [4]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tiktok-creators-data-security-china/?sh=2a6d1e470488 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tikt... [2] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People's_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo... [4] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-drops-peaceful-reunification-reference-taiwan-raises-defence-spending-by-2024-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-drops-peaceful-reu...