4 ms·

Not my country so I couldn't care less. Just my observation from two oceans away: US is a hypocrite. How about Meta and other US companies? Those companies doe

Not my country so I couldn't care less. Just my observation from two oceans away: US is a hypocrite. How about Meta and other US companies? Those companies does the same if not worse damage to your citizen.

genocidicbunny 2y ago
> US is a hypocrite No, it's not. The point is about who's doing the damage. Ultimately, you can't really drop a ginsu telephone pole or send a 3-letter agency for a late night visit to a China-controlled company's leadership, but you can do that with US-based companies. From a geopolitical stance, US companies can be wielded to further US' interests, not so much for ByteDance.
crazylogger 2y ago
IMO Pandora's box is now open, and it's a matter of time before we see countries around the world offer the same divest-or-ban choice to Meta, Google, etc. The question is who first and how quickly it will happen.
- hagbarth 2y ago
  Facebook and Google are already banned or blocked in multiple countries.
  - crazylogger 2y ago
    You raise a good point. Let me step back and say that previously it's mostly authoritarian countries doing it and this type of censorship is generally unacceptable in Western societies, that the US is fundamentally different from China in the freedoms they allow. Today we are shown that the US government can't tolerate a single non-American service becoming mainstream after all. I fear this will become the norm and in a couple years' time, all countries will block all foreign internet services by default, only homegrown apps will exist. Think Canada, France, the UK each having their own versions of Google, Instagram, Reddit, everything.
    - tmvphil 2y ago
      I don't think that's right. It's specifically about China, an adversary we are teetering on the brink of open conflict with. If ByteDance was a south Korean company, I don't think this would have happened.
remixff2400 2y ago
The difference is that citizens can influence those companies, or influence the politicians that can influence those companies. Also, there's no direct incentive to have broad negative impacts on citizen consumers at a global politics level (not that it doesn't do so at other levels). If you're another country consuming Meta, etc. then you should probably be wary about dependence on a foreign platform's influence. The biggest difference however is how close the platform is to the government. In the US, it's getting closer, but still has some separation; in China it's rather close to one-and-the-same due to the pressure that the govt can exert on companies to do their bidding.

genocidicbunny 2y ago

> US is a hypocrite No, it's not. The point is about who's doing the damage. Ultimately, you can't really drop a ginsu telephone pole or send a 3-letter agency for a late night visit to a China-controlled company's leadership, but you can do that with US-based companies. From a geopolitical stance, US companies can be wielded to further US' interests, not so much for ByteDance.

crazylogger 2y ago

IMO Pandora's box is now open, and it's a matter of time before we see countries around the world offer the same divest-or-ban choice to Meta, Google, etc. The question is who first and how quickly it will happen.

hagbarth 2y ago
Facebook and Google are already banned or blocked in multiple countries.
- crazylogger 2y ago
  You raise a good point. Let me step back and say that previously it's mostly authoritarian countries doing it and this type of censorship is generally unacceptable in Western societies, that the US is fundamentally different from China in the freedoms they allow. Today we are shown that the US government can't tolerate a single non-American service becoming mainstream after all. I fear this will become the norm and in a couple years' time, all countries will block all foreign internet services by default, only homegrown apps will exist. Think Canada, France, the UK each having their own versions of Google, Instagram, Reddit, everything.
  - tmvphil 2y ago
    I don't think that's right. It's specifically about China, an adversary we are teetering on the brink of open conflict with. If ByteDance was a south Korean company, I don't think this would have happened.

remixff2400 2y ago

The difference is that citizens can influence those companies, or influence the politicians that can influence those companies. Also, there's no direct incentive to have broad negative impacts on citizen consumers at a global politics level (not that it doesn't do so at other levels). If you're another country consuming Meta, etc. then you should probably be wary about dependence on a foreign platform's influence. The biggest difference however is how close the platform is to the government. In the US, it's getting closer, but still has some separation; in China it's rather close to one-and-the-same due to the pressure that the govt can exert on companies to do their bidding.