3 ms·

>and if they feel that is in their national interest, why can’t we return the favor when we feel it’s in our interest? By the looks of it, it seems like you wa

>and if they feel that is in their national interest, why can’t we return the favor when we feel it’s in our interest? By the looks of it, it seems like you want the US to be more like the CCP than the other way around. Imitating authoritarian governments harms America's global reputation for "freedom and democracy", if that reputation even still exists.

hot_gril 3y ago
I view it like trade. They block our social media there, we block theirs here. EU did the same when we put tariffs on their steel or something.
- jtriangle 3y ago
  And eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
  - tomatokoolaid 3y ago
    Yes, at least half blind. But an eye for nothing but complacence often results in two eyes for nothing ... and handing your adversary full advantage.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    That saying applies to things you cannot take back, like blinding someone, not trade agreements. It's also like an eye for 200 eyes at this point. Tit-for-tat (or some softer variation) is pretty standard diplomatic protocol.
    - jtriangle 3y ago
      Sure, but can you take back banning a social media platform? Very likely not, because even if you did, it'd still be ruined by a massive loss of users/ad partners/etc. Realistically, what we needed is comprehensive user privacy legislation, which would prevent anyone from spying on us, including our own government. Likely the reason that did not happen is because our government enjoys access to our user data for various things.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        It would cause damage that can be mended, same as how restricting steel trade would definitely hurt or bankrupt some companies caught up in it.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    So trite! Without reciprocal actions there is no incentive for change.
eganist 3y ago
> By the looks of it, it seems like you want the US to be more like the CCP than the other way around. Imitating authoritarian governments harms America's global reputation for "freedom and democracy", if that reputation even still exists. There's a wild difference between unfettered access to a company's assets, systems, networks, data, etc. vs policywork to simply require that companies be owned at the very least by a country that isn't either Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran. Yes, I did read the bill. They did specifically single out ByteDance presumably to make sure there wasn't a way ByteDance could claim they weren't under Chinese influence. But they made a point of calling out Foreign Adversary Countries and pointed to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 in doing so. Bill raw text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#H1DAB5129BC0949429666E66593E18128 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...

hot_gril 3y ago

I view it like trade. They block our social media there, we block theirs here. EU did the same when we put tariffs on their steel or something.

jtriangle 3y ago
And eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
- tomatokoolaid 3y ago
  Yes, at least half blind. But an eye for nothing but complacence often results in two eyes for nothing ... and handing your adversary full advantage.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  That saying applies to things you cannot take back, like blinding someone, not trade agreements. It's also like an eye for 200 eyes at this point. Tit-for-tat (or some softer variation) is pretty standard diplomatic protocol.
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    Sure, but can you take back banning a social media platform? Very likely not, because even if you did, it'd still be ruined by a massive loss of users/ad partners/etc. Realistically, what we needed is comprehensive user privacy legislation, which would prevent anyone from spying on us, including our own government. Likely the reason that did not happen is because our government enjoys access to our user data for various things.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      It would cause damage that can be mended, same as how restricting steel trade would definitely hurt or bankrupt some companies caught up in it.
- xdennis 3y ago
  So trite! Without reciprocal actions there is no incentive for change.

eganist 3y ago

> By the looks of it, it seems like you want the US to be more like the CCP than the other way around. Imitating authoritarian governments harms America's global reputation for "freedom and democracy", if that reputation even still exists. There's a wild difference between unfettered access to a company's assets, systems, networks, data, etc. vs policywork to simply require that companies be owned at the very least by a country that isn't either Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran. Yes, I did read the bill. They did specifically single out ByteDance presumably to make sure there wasn't a way ByteDance could claim they weren't under Chinese influence. But they made a point of calling out Foreign Adversary Countries and pointed to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 in doing so. Bill raw text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#H1DAB5129BC0949429666E66593E18128 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...