9 ms·

As a European, I find it quite outrageous to demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held. It is the old-scho

As a European, I find it quite outrageous to demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held. It is the old-school imperialist school of thought. If you think Bytedance is harming Americans, despite following american law, then amend the rules for social media companies. Or at least be honest enough to say: "The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards".

rNULLED 2y ago
This is what they have said, in the most honest way of all — action!
jewelry 2y ago
well I believe if bytedance is a French company or Australian company this wont happen
- pceznna 2y ago
  People forgot about Alstom? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci
  - wbl 2y ago
    French company paying bribes is utterly believable.
chpatrick 2y ago
I think it's totally reasonable when it has massive influence over your population and is controlled by a geopolitical adversary. The EU banned Russia Today (correctly in my opinion) and that was nothing compared to TikTok. Propaganda isn't free speech.
- parpfish 2y ago
  I agree that the TikTok shutdown/sale/whatever-it-is is reasonable. But I also agree with the grandfather post that this standard should be applied to all social media. A company that is under the sway of the CCP is an obvious first step, but just because twitter and facebook are American-owned doesn’t mean that geopolitical adversaries can’t use them to control the population too.
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    The thing is that those companies are very much under the power of American law, so we can (and have) taken less drastic (and less effective, imo) measures to restrict adversaries from using them for propaganda.
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  Amending the rules to prevent that kind of influence would be reasonable. He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    But that's not what the law says.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else. The problem is that right now the power is yielded by the CCP, which is clearly unacceptable. The problem is not TikTok per se but how a totalitarian regime that has a long track record of actively engaging in espionage and psyops against the US is controlling that platform. Forcing the CCP to sell it's position mitigates or eliminates the impact on the remaining shareholder's interests. The fact that the CCP opts for scorched earth tactics is already telling.
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      I don't think anyone is arguing that it is acceptable, but that the solution is at odds with a free market economy and values usually upheld by western democracies. A company in Hungary starts manufacturing cars. They become wildly popular in the US. Everyone and their aunt is driving one. Then the US demands a sale for national security reasons. Does that sound reasonable? Instead, you address whatever the security gap is (data privacy, scanning for backdoors, data residency, etc) and enforce compliance. In the case of social media, that would be mandatory tagging of paid content, advertisements, political ads (or prohibition of), along with measures to slow down/limit the dissemination of information so no single person can sway public opinion with the wave of a hand (cough cough X). In many countries, influencers are now subject to advertising rules, as it should be. At some point we'll need to get a grasp on how to do the same for news/opinion pieces. Just dropping the whole thing into 'more reliable hands' without changing any of the rules of the game accomplishes very little.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  So, principles don't matter anymore? It's all about whose side you're on? Because I think all those "unfree" countries think the same thing.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    These people think that minimum wage "fact checkers" who delete posts that don't agree with their handbook are "freedom", not "censorship". So they think they have principles.
  - wrsh07 2y ago
    This is an absolutely unhinged take. The US doesn't allow more than 25% foreign ownership of broadcast media. That's not some "free speech" violation. If a foreigner wants to say something, they have many ways to do it. But they don't have those privileged ways.
    - Aerroon 2y ago
      But would you want the rest of the world to operate the same way? If ycombinator wants to show HN to somebody in Germany then they would have to spin off a company owned by Germans to be able to show HN there? Same for France and the other 170-200 countries in the world. This is obviously an unreasonable way for the internet to work.
      - wrsh07 2y ago
        Sorry what? I'm pretty sure HN is accessible in Germany. Are you trying to say there's some utilitarian principle where countries should allow companies from other countries to operate unrestricted? I'm a fan of free trade! That's a good thing! But tolerance is not a moral precept. We don't have to allow companies that report to hostile foreign governments to operate! Even among friendly nations, the European governments are fairly opinionated about how US tech companies are allowed to operate in Europe.
  - chpatrick 2y ago
    Which principles are we talking about? If everyone under the age of 30 was using an app run by Nazi Germany would you be okay with that? Propaganda is a weapon and no principle says that you should let an enemy army into your country.
- 331c8c71 2y ago
  > Propaganda isn't free speech. Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? And propaganda coming from EU is fine I guess?
  - chpatrick 2y ago
    In this case the democratically elected US Congress.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    > Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? Like most things in the EU it’s overly complicated, but I think sanctions are decided unanimously by the Council, which in this case would be assembled national ministers of foreign policy or security.
- kaoD 2y ago
  > Propaganda isn't free speech. If free speech has exceptions it's not free speech. The government will keep adding exceptions.
  - konschubert 2y ago
    And if you have free speech without exceptions, foreign actors will see it as a weakness and use it to brain rot your society.
    - kaoD 2y ago
      Yeah, the government loves to be the only one that can brain rot their (loved that you used the possessive pronoun!) society. When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? I thought distrusting the government was American tradition?
      - konschubert 2y ago
        I think we as Europeans would do better if we actually defended against Russia's hybrid warfare. I understand all these principled stances and I do support them ethically, but sometimes you have no choice but to choose the lesser evil.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        > When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? Technically speaking, they did in 1789. As to the practicality of it, the US government expanded massively from 1900-1950, so maybe during that time period. The FCC was formed in 1972, so on the issue of permissible purveyors of brain rot, maybe then.
      - konschubert 2y ago
        Btw, I used “you” as a reference to the sovereign democracy society, not the government.
  - chpatrick 2y ago
    This is just the paradox of tolerance, if you allow everything you won't be free for long.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  In the US propaganda is free speech. We allowed enemies of the US to circulate Communist newspapers in America during the Cold War because we believe the people control the government not the government control the people
  - chpatrick 2y ago
    Guess we're not going to mention McCarthy...?
    - the_af 2y ago
      McCarthy is an example of witch hunts, I wouldn't use it as a positive example.
      - chpatrick 2y ago
        I'm just saying the US govt hasn't been historically that big on certain types of speech, for better or worse.
infecto 2y ago
I think it’s more along the lines of the free market is great but if a foreign government has close control/ties with a pervasive social media business that it’s not great. Sounded like via an IPO they would have still had the ability to retain some ownership via the stock but would not longer have complete secret control.
CryptoBanker 2y ago
So is it fine when China does it, just not when the U.S. does it?
- kaoD 2y ago
  It is never okay, but the rest of the world (and sensible Americans) sees it as hypocritical when the land of the free does it. The US government should just go ahead and say it like it is: they'd like to hold as much power as the Chinese government does, and they're taking the steps to do so. The American oligarchy feels threatened because the empire is crumbling under their feet, so they're finally taking their masks off.
  - japanification 2y ago
    [flagged]
- mmacvicarprett 2y ago
  I think the point is that China does not present itself as the paladin of free spech and individual liberties.
  - bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago
    Chinese people and Chinese media businesses are not Americans. They are not protected by the constitution.
- motorest 2y ago
  > So is it fine when China does it, just not when the U.S. does it? What are you talking about? No US corporation can operate in China without granting China control over your data. I mean, anyone with a cursory understanding of the topic can tell you how China effectively forces internet companies to design their China presence as completely siloed operations with very tight requirements in what personally identifiable information they store.
kyrra 2y ago
The law states that it cannot be owned by a Chinese company. So they could be sold to owners in almost any other country (the law explicitly lists China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia as being banned. Edit: text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs.xml https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs..., which references a different part of the statute for the list of countries here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872
- withinboredom 2y ago
  It’s interesting that they didn’t press the constitutionality of this. They fought over “free speech” where it’s more clear that this might be a bill of attainder or violation of the 14th amendment.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > It’s interesting that they didn’t press the constitutionality of this. They fought over “free speech” where it’s more clear that this might be a bill of attainder or violation of the 14th amendment. Please explain in layman's terms why do you believe the 14th amendment applies to the federal government rejecting a corporation owned and controlled by a totalitarian regime from operating within the US.
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I believe this applies to the USA as a whole as well, not just to states (Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) according to ChatGPT). One could argue the law is unconstitutional because it applies a punishment without due process.
      - philwelch 2y ago
maxdo 2y ago
The demand is literally stated to American or allies company. So this is not true. But that’s what national interest protection looks like. Look at Germany and Europe in general , they pay money to arm their aggressive neighbor, still not able to shield themselves from China. And asking US to protect Europe . I don’t think Europe , giving the situation is in position to suggest about national interest protection. It’s like drug addict talk about healthy lifestyle
- xbmanhg 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wrsh07 2y ago
    Out of curiosity, did the US also push Russia to invade Georgia? What about Crimea^? ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
    - 331c8c71 2y ago
      Georgia was not that dissimilar of a situation if I remember well, NATO cooperation and membership being widely discussed by Saakashvili.
- drtgh 2y ago
  > [...] And asking US to protect Europe To protect Europe from who... Let's look at where we are with cold eyes (I'm European). Russian direct energy supplies to the EU have been cut, raising energy costs, all EU industries are affected, making it more difficult to compete with China and the US. Energy, which now comes also in part through expensive ships from the US, whom -surprise- is now able to threat to cut it off, increasing influence over EU politics, energy that it is now also paid with dollar currency, at the same time EU economic resources -that should be used for the internal development- are being asked to be diverged to buy US weapons through NATO. So I would suggest to avoid the "US saving heroes" discourse. The reality sounds more like the US elite has benefited from the war (a big industry for them), so much that should be included within the suspicious list. What pockets planned and backed up the Maidan rise that removed the Kremlin's puppet from power? Who aimed and intended such country to join NATO along years before this event? Because can be guessed this aimed the psychopathic Putin to increase the violence of his mafia things, maybe someones expected this violence in invasion form, or another form that would drag Europe into the same position it is in now. > Still not able to shield themselves from China It would be interesting to read how one country has protected itself from China's dumping, among other things, considering the massive industrial companies and seaports the Chinese government already bought around the world, including the US.
atomicnumber3 2y ago
>amend the rules I dunno. I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough to get them to a) provide the actual fucking product, not some bastardized version that's intentionally bastardized to make people voluntarily keep using the evil version, AND b) not be evil. At the same time. Look at apple with the payment shit. They managed to do neither a NOR b! The data privacy stuff usually has companies just opting out of serving the EU. So, there's clearly a very hard problem here, of how do you make these entities whose sole goal is to maximize profit, who have managed to figure out a way that makes tons of profit while having the only "pollution" be the damage we do to our culture/dopamine receptors. Which is a lot harder to get people mad about compared to oil in the ocean and smog in the air. In the meantime, I don't mind us just trying to keep things at least vaguely geopolitically aligned. Look at what russia is doing to US politics with very basic tactics (reddit comments etc). Now imagine China trying to do something actually subtle. To underline the difference I'm referring to, just look at tiktok vs rednote. Western users immediately getting banned from rednote for posting the "wrong" kind of LGBT stuff. There are some fundamentally different cultural expectations about freedom of speech. Can you imagine how censored talking about vietnam would be if the US took the same approach as China did w.r.t. Tienanmen Square?
- rapnie 2y ago
  > I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough It takes a lot of time to open political eyes, break through lobby barriers, and get sufficient awareness on the deep issues. Then it takes an age - in business terms - for governmental action and regulation to follow. But if that is ramping up inertia builds and prolonged policy follows, hopefully as unstoppable tide. Other than some decent government regulation and old-fashioned unfair competition protection there's talk talk talk and not much that restrains Big Tech and the maddened billionaire class.
mcherm 2y ago
An an American, I also find it outrageous. In fact, as I understand it, our most fundamental law (the Constitution) clearly guarantees "freedom of speech and freedom of the press" which specifically means that the government may NOT shut down a particular publisher because the government does not like what they say, or who it is that owns them. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with me about what our Constitution requires.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  The Constitution does not guarantee any rights to the Chinese government.
  - Oranguru 2y ago
    However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. Of course, if the law is (arbitrarily) changed to make this illegal due to the Chinese government's stake, then it could be forced to shut down, but that would be inconsistent with the constitution.
    - motorest 2y ago
      > However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. ByteDance is a Chinese company with it's headquarters in China. The so-called TikTok ban is a call for ByteDance to sell off it's controlling position over TikTok, otherwise TikTok can no longer operate in the US. The fact that China is spinning this issue as a TikTok ban is telling.
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        What would you call Tesla not being able to sell cars in China unless sold to a Chinese company - what might you call that? :)
        josephcsible 2y ago
micromacrofoot 2y ago
You can't have this take without acknowledging the US is currently in a technological cold war with China. It's not old school at all, they've been hacking our infrastructure and stealing proprietary data from corporations for years (and vice versa, no doubt). Having a direct adversary control what young people consume for hours a day with a black-box algorithm is very dangerous. Also note that TikTok has been banned in Hong Kong for years now. I also think it's dangerous for domestic companies to do this, but obviously the US gov't is going to prioritize China because politicians can take bribes (in the form of lobbying) domestically.
- nthingtohide 2y ago
  US was doing the same thing to its own citizens. refer Zuck's podcast with Joe Rogan. The DeepState used carrot and stick approach to make Zuck kneel. They would have destroyed Meta if Zuck didn't succumb to their demands.
  - micromacrofoot 2y ago
    Yep definitely, the US does it all the time... but there's a big difference between doing it to yourself vs having your enemy do it to you.
datadeft 2y ago
Like Didi / Uber in China?
bad_user 2y ago
As a European born in communism, I find it dangerous for a communist and despotic state to yield so much power and for Europe to consider it business as usual, even if China may have started their own hybrid war with Europe, supporting Russia and preparing for the invasion of Taiwan. China, BTW, is censoring or blocking all Western social media platforms and online publications. Why should we accept their online services when they are blocking ours? Say what you will of USA, but they are allies and Europe needs to grow the f* up and stop being so tolerant of despotic countries, because our money and resources are fuelling their wars. I understand that you're afraid of the US yielding so much power online, but then propose a European alternative, not a Chinese one. Let's innovate instead of complaining about US's tech hegemony, as right now all I'm seeing are complaints and regulations for tech we aren't building.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  As a European born in communism, you think if a communist country censors our information, we should censor theirs? Hard to believe.
yyyfb 2y ago
Compare with China though. There is absolutely no way that a company like Bytedance would be allowed to operate inside China while under American control.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  Correct. All the popular US social media sites are fully banned in China.
sanderjd 2y ago
As of today, they would not be following American law by continuing to operate. The rules were amended by writing a new law that they're now following.
Aurornis 2y ago
> too successful and valuable to be foreign-held That’s a thoroughly disingenuous spin on the reasoning. There is no movement to prevent foreign companies from having popular apps in general. The law is narrowly targeted. TikTok could continue to be foreign-held as long as they separated from the government of a specific foreign country. I’m amazed at how many commenters are twisting themselves into pretzels to try to make this some generic imperialist move or use whataboutism to downplay the reasoning behind this move. A decade ago it was common knowledge on the internet that China heavily controlled and shaped internet discourse within their reach, to push government agendas in an extreme way. There is no parallel to their cultural control in the US. Did everyone suddenly forget this, or are they just ignoring it for the sake of argument?
- varsketiz 2y ago
  I found your angle very interesting. I'm baffled by the same thing. Is it that a new generation (that is now < 30) grew up without realising this? I wonder what is the age of average commenter here.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    After reading more comments, I think this comment section is just full of people who only read the headlines and then assume the rest, rather than try to read the articles or understand what’s going on. Whether you agree with the move or not, the storylines being pushed in hundreds of comments here don’t even reflect the reality of the law, let alone the reasoning behind it. It’s also ironic to read all of the commenters that don’t realize that China already controls social media use within their own country to a degree far more strict than this. The amount of control that China exerts over everything from Facebook to Google within their country was a well known topic for years online. Here on HN people were disgusted that FB and others were giving in to government censorship in those countries. Now it all seems to be forgotten? It’s weird to me to see all of the narratives in this comment section being built on top of imagined realities with no regard for how other countries have been operating for decades.
    - 2y ago
velcrovan 2y ago
> demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held This is a reductive and misleading analysis. The US has already prohibited foreign entities from holding broadcast/common carrier licenses, or from owning significant chunks of equity in holders of those licenses [1]. It should be kind of obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned. You could argue that if the US wants to update the 1934 telecommunications act for the 21st century, it should do so more thoughtfully and comprehensively (I would agree). But the TikTok ban, however poorly written or haphazardly targeted, is fairly in line with a legal doctrine that has been commonly known and accepted for 90 years. [1]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
- 383toast 2y ago
  > obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned. And yet many countries have no objection with letting their citizens use US FAANG services?
  - philipov 2y ago
    They should, and they should develop home-grown alternatives to these services. It's not that Tiktok shouldn't be banned, it's that Facebook and Twitter should also be banned. Megacorps should to be destroyed up regardless of their nation of origin.
    - andsoitis 2y ago
      > Megacorps should to be destroyed In your view: a) what is a megacorp (criteria), and b) why do you think they should be destroyed? For reference, the largest 15 companies in the world, by: - Market cap are: Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Saudi Aramco, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, TSMC, Berkshire Hathaway, Walmart, JPMorgan, Eli Lilly, Visa - by # of employees: Walmart, Amazon, Foxconn, Accenture, VW, Tata, DHL, BYD, Compass, Jingdong, UPS, Gazprom, Home Depot, JD Logistics, Agricultural Bank of China. - by earnings: Saudi Aramco, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, NVIDIA, JP Morgan Chase, Meta, Amazon, ICBC, China Construction Bank, China Pacific Insurance, Exxon Mobil, Agricultural Bank of China, Toyota https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/
rvba 2y ago
The thing is that you dont get the same free market in China. Can you even own a company in China? Not to mention anything uncensored?
maeil 2y ago
They don't have to sell it, they can simply choose not to operate in the US. If Zuckerberg, or Musk (X), or Reddit, or Snap, or HN, or any Western platform would want to operate in China, they'd have to hand over control to a Chinese company. Instead, they simply don't operate there. > "The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards". It's been blatantly obvious since the beginning of time that the free market isn't a thing. Foreign ownership of massive media platforms has been awful. The other way around as well. Would be fantastic if the EU banned Meta, for one. Instead they're suddenly scared of continuing to fine them for their continuous illegal data harvesting and gatekeeping to cozy up to Trump. Just consider Rupert Murdoch. Every country he's been active in would have been better off if he'd been straight up banned from owning local media companies.
dayvid 2y ago
It's not just broadcasting of info, it's having information on your location, contacts, comments, biometric data, etc. It's the reason why the military banned it first. It can definitely be a national security threat.
- crote 2y ago
  They don't need their own app for that. American companies are more than happy to sell all of that to the highest bidder.
wesapien 2y ago
It's ridiculous. Who made their now so called adversary? Who shifted production to them?
- LPisGood 2y ago
  I don’t think it really matters. The fact is there is now a semi-adversarial relationship.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rsanek 2y ago
they didn't demand it be sold to the US. they just said it can't be owned by china, NK, Russia, Iran. a European company could buy it and everyone could keep using it.
- motorest 2y ago
  > they didn't demand it be sold to the US. they just said it can't be owned by china, NK, Russia, Iran. On that note, I wonder if the same approach should apply to Elon Musk's Twitter takeover.
  - nmeofthestate 2y ago
    It would be a no-op. "Twitter cannot be Chinese (or NK etc) owned." OK, done.
etempleton 2y ago
It has too much influence for China to hold. Let’s be clear if an EU country held Bytedance this would not be an issue. Really this is about not allowing China to do things and then not retaliating in kind. This is what China does to American companies and so no American company can really survive long term in China. It creates an imbalance and will eventually lead to China’s complete domination in most key industries. America is finally catching on.
markus_zhang 2y ago
I think we can just cut the crap and say, now the gloves have been taken off. It's a jungle. Let's grab whatever we can. I mean it has always been like this anyway, just with some gloves. There is no law above the states(elites).
- mfuzzey 2y ago
  And that is exactly what we don't want. We want civilized law based international relations not a jungle. International courts should settle disputes based on law
  - markus_zhang 2y ago
    It's a good thought without practical implementation. How does the international law enforce anything? Actually, why do you pay tax if you don't have to and there is no IRS or whatever agency chasing you?
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Why are you looking to the US for your outrage, EU members are doing the exact same thing: "Eleven EU countries took 5G security measures to ban Huawei, ZTE " https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/12/eleven-eu-countries-took-5g-security-measures-to-ban-huawei-zte https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/12/eleven-eu-countries...
- mfuzzey 2y ago
  It's not quite the same. The EU has banned those companies from supplying network infrastructure. That infrastructure is used both by private individuals and by companies, ministers etc. AFAIK they have also banned TikTok on official government phones. However they have not generally banned TikTok for everyone. To me this makes more sense since a back door in network infrastructure allowing governement communications to be intercepted is far more serious than some kid using TikTok.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > AFAIK they have also banned TikTok on official government phones. However they have not generally banned TikTok for everyone. The US is not banning TikTok. The US is forcing ByteDance to sell it's controlling position on TikTok or else the company is no longer able to operate within the US. How come the critical bit is repeatedly left out?
    - palata 2y ago
      "I did not shoot this person: I asked this person to give me all their money or else I would shoot them."
      - motorest 2y ago
        No. The requirement is that ByteDance must sell it's position of a company. If you bother to learn about the law in question, it quite blatantly targets the ownership of the company, not the company itself. ByteDance instead opted to shut the company down in retaliation, because it found it was desirable to just crash the whole company than to have anyone else control it, and in the process is fooling useful idiots into believing this has nothing to do with China's interference.
mkhpalm 2y ago
It’s important to note that media companies in China are required to have a Chinese partner who holds a majority stake, typically 51% or more.
gardenhedge 2y ago
As a European, I think it makes sense to ban it. The threat is not the same from American companies.
- palata 2y ago
  I think Europe should ban the US social media as well as the Chinese ones.
rib3ye 2y ago
Look at the list of sites banned in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... Did you notice something similar about those companies, of which TikTok is included? Social media is not normal capitalism - it’s defense industry psychological warfare tooling. We’re seeing this play out big time in the Israeli and Ukrainian conflicts right now and it’s time to take a wartime approach to the issue.
goodluckchuck 2y ago
It’s not like TikTok is competing on the open market. They have massive financial backing irrespective of how much money they lose.
richardw 2y ago
China is not just foreign, it’s a rising superpower who has demonstrated ongoing information and cyber attacks against the US, and who has a stated goal of invading Taiwan. It attempts to dislodge the US or West influence wherever possible. That’s different to eg Germany, France or Japan. Playing fair is fine, so rather ask for level playing fields. Where there aren’t, apply pressure. Compared to arming other countries this is barely worth a big argument.
krab 2y ago
They did it before. See for example the history of Merck, a German pharma company during WW1. > The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards. I think that's the actual reasoning. Be mindful that USA is our ally but they'll always prefer their own interest and that's normal.
robswc 2y ago
> because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held That is not the reason at all. I highly doubt if it was made in Europe, it would be banned. China would never allow a TikTok equivalent to operate in China, which is smart. We should do the same.
dtquad 2y ago
As a European I noticed all the neo-authoritarian Russia supporters crying on X and BlueSky and therefore support the US ban on Tiktok. I am usually against the EU frenchies making up new regulations but they get a pass if they manage to ban Tiktok.
- japanification 2y ago
  [flagged]
jonny_eh 2y ago
China banned Youtube in 2009. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
oh-contrare- 2y ago
Eh-- Interjecting one's own opinion arguably amounts to intellectual imperialism. Imperialism is a part of life-- whether it's mold in a petri dish, prides of lions or chimpanzees raiding neighbors. We live in the wild where strength conquers. It's just that we forget that when we're insulated from reality by convenience, comfort, concrete, and naivete. No one should be ashamed for conquering or for exercising their own strength to their own benefit. Only those unable to do so are the ones to complain. And the complaints are futile-- Resource Competition is a fact of life and it is not going away.
bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago
As a European, you are allowed to feel however you want. As an American, I am allowed not to care.
baryphonic 2y ago
(American here.) I don't think I'd support a ban if ByteDance was a European company or Indian or South Korean or Japanese. China is a unique threat given the totalitarian turn they've taken over the past decade combined with the fact that no Chinese company is truly private in its day-to-day operations. All Chinese companies must have CCP influence as a matter of Chinese policy. It would be like if T-Mobile (the US mobile division of Deutsche Telekom) was required to have the influence of the German government including the monitoring and reporting of phone calls to senior party officials.
TulliusCicero 2y ago
> As a European, I find it quite outrageous to demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held. These sorts of bad faith comments are so tiresome to read. We all know that if the foreign country in question was Japan or France then nobody would really give a shit. Even a more neutral country like India or Brazil would likely be completely fine. It's specifically an issue because China is a geopolitical opponent of the US that we're engaged in a sort of new cold war with. Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already, and a bunch of other websites and apps besides. Tit-for-tat is very common in trade, you can't expect other countries to leave your foreign ventures untouched if you heavily restrict theirs.
- palata 2y ago
  How come Xiaomi is not banned in the US? Only the most successful commercially get banned, but that's solely for national security, right? /s > Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already And the US is usually pretty good at criticising that. But apparently not so good at accepting when other criticise the US for doing the same.
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    Is your argument seriously, "yeah but if the US doesn't ban things as hard as China, it doesn't count"? Personally I'd love for the US to ban or restrict more things from China. Not because that's the end state I want, but maybe it'd get China to loosen restrictions so that we'd get closer to parity.
    - palata 2y ago
      No. My point is that the US is hypocritical about this. Every excuse is found to not call this protectionism. It is protectionism, period. If Huawei smartphones are a national security threat that justifies a ban, then Xiaomi smartphones are as well. But those are not banned. Why? Because the ban is more for protectionism than for security reasons. Just own it, that's fine.
6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago
This is the most disappointing part. We've let some of our companies do sketchy stuff because it's so hard to see where a new ecosystem will go ahead of time, and really hard to roll back popular ecosystems. But finally we have the political will to make a change for the better, and instead of ruling that 'oh turns out it is bad to allow XYZ, so here are some new rules preventing XYZ,' we're ruling that 'oh turns out it is bad to allow XYZ, so here are some new rules saying only I get to do XYZ.'
Gimpei 2y ago
You shouldn’t. Lest we forget, China has banned all American social media companies and quite a few other tech companies. Why shouldn’t the US do the same? Red Note should probably be banned too. The condition to lift the ban? Allow google, facebook, snap, etc in China. Until that day, I don’t understand why this is even a question.
- palata 2y ago
  I am fine with the US doing protectionism, it's their choice. But they should own it. Not always play the kings of freedom, with freedom being systematically defined as "whatever is best for the US".
  - lvl155 2y ago
    It’s not even protectionism. US is the only country in the world to honor unwritten free market rules. Simply because people here believe in it. All we want is reciprocity. US is not protecting the Googles and Facebooks of the world. No one told the RoW to have restrictive politics that kill innovations to the extent that their best talent rather come to the US to pursue their dreams.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lossolo 2y ago
What’s also outrageous is that while there is no proof that the CCP is using TikTok for nefarious purposes in EU/US (at least for now), there is evidence of the owner of X using his power to influence European elections in many EU countries, while spreading misinformation and fake news himself. But we can’t ban it in the EU because our security-reliant master won’t allow it.[1] 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-nato-support-eu-regulation-x-musk-free-speech-2024-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-nato-support-eu-reg...
lvl155 2y ago
That’s rich coming from Europe. You guys pillaged rest of the world for 700 years. Took all the gold from the Americas then proceeded enslave Africans for centuries. And normalized it. Play by the rules? What rules?
cryptonector 2y ago
This is par for the course worldwide and for the U.S. in particular. Nothing really new here.
josephcsible 2y ago
Nobody was demanding that it be sold to the US. There are almost 200 countries in the world, and all but 4 of them would have been fine.

rNULLED 2y ago

This is what they have said, in the most honest way of all — action!

jewelry 2y ago

well I believe if bytedance is a French company or Australian company this wont happen

pceznna 2y ago
People forgot about Alstom? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci
- wbl 2y ago
  French company paying bribes is utterly believable.

chpatrick 2y ago

I think it's totally reasonable when it has massive influence over your population and is controlled by a geopolitical adversary. The EU banned Russia Today (correctly in my opinion) and that was nothing compared to TikTok. Propaganda isn't free speech.

parpfish 2y ago
I agree that the TikTok shutdown/sale/whatever-it-is is reasonable. But I also agree with the grandfather post that this standard should be applied to all social media. A company that is under the sway of the CCP is an obvious first step, but just because twitter and facebook are American-owned doesn’t mean that geopolitical adversaries can’t use them to control the population too.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  The thing is that those companies are very much under the power of American law, so we can (and have) taken less drastic (and less effective, imo) measures to restrict adversaries from using them for propaganda.
ricardobeat 2y ago
Amending the rules to prevent that kind of influence would be reasonable. He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  But that's not what the law says.
- motorest 2y ago
  > He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else. The problem is that right now the power is yielded by the CCP, which is clearly unacceptable. The problem is not TikTok per se but how a totalitarian regime that has a long track record of actively engaging in espionage and psyops against the US is controlling that platform. Forcing the CCP to sell it's position mitigates or eliminates the impact on the remaining shareholder's interests. The fact that the CCP opts for scorched earth tactics is already telling.
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that it is acceptable, but that the solution is at odds with a free market economy and values usually upheld by western democracies. A company in Hungary starts manufacturing cars. They become wildly popular in the US. Everyone and their aunt is driving one. Then the US demands a sale for national security reasons. Does that sound reasonable? Instead, you address whatever the security gap is (data privacy, scanning for backdoors, data residency, etc) and enforce compliance. In the case of social media, that would be mandatory tagging of paid content, advertisements, political ads (or prohibition of), along with measures to slow down/limit the dissemination of information so no single person can sway public opinion with the wave of a hand (cough cough X). In many countries, influencers are now subject to advertising rules, as it should be. At some point we'll need to get a grasp on how to do the same for news/opinion pieces. Just dropping the whole thing into 'more reliable hands' without changing any of the rules of the game accomplishes very little.
Aerroon 2y ago
So, principles don't matter anymore? It's all about whose side you're on? Because I think all those "unfree" countries think the same thing.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  These people think that minimum wage "fact checkers" who delete posts that don't agree with their handbook are "freedom", not "censorship". So they think they have principles.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  This is an absolutely unhinged take. The US doesn't allow more than 25% foreign ownership of broadcast media. That's not some "free speech" violation. If a foreigner wants to say something, they have many ways to do it. But they don't have those privileged ways.
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    But would you want the rest of the world to operate the same way? If ycombinator wants to show HN to somebody in Germany then they would have to spin off a company owned by Germans to be able to show HN there? Same for France and the other 170-200 countries in the world. This is obviously an unreasonable way for the internet to work.
    - wrsh07 2y ago
      Sorry what? I'm pretty sure HN is accessible in Germany. Are you trying to say there's some utilitarian principle where countries should allow companies from other countries to operate unrestricted? I'm a fan of free trade! That's a good thing! But tolerance is not a moral precept. We don't have to allow companies that report to hostile foreign governments to operate! Even among friendly nations, the European governments are fairly opinionated about how US tech companies are allowed to operate in Europe.
- chpatrick 2y ago
  Which principles are we talking about? If everyone under the age of 30 was using an app run by Nazi Germany would you be okay with that? Propaganda is a weapon and no principle says that you should let an enemy army into your country.
331c8c71 2y ago
> Propaganda isn't free speech. Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? And propaganda coming from EU is fine I guess?
- chpatrick 2y ago
  In this case the democratically elected US Congress.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- mr_toad 2y ago
  > Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? Like most things in the EU it’s overly complicated, but I think sanctions are decided unanimously by the Council, which in this case would be assembled national ministers of foreign policy or security.
kaoD 2y ago
> Propaganda isn't free speech. If free speech has exceptions it's not free speech. The government will keep adding exceptions.
- konschubert 2y ago
  And if you have free speech without exceptions, foreign actors will see it as a weakness and use it to brain rot your society.
  - kaoD 2y ago
    Yeah, the government loves to be the only one that can brain rot their (loved that you used the possessive pronoun!) society. When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? I thought distrusting the government was American tradition?
    - konschubert 2y ago
      I think we as Europeans would do better if we actually defended against Russia's hybrid warfare. I understand all these principled stances and I do support them ethically, but sometimes you have no choice but to choose the lesser evil.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      > When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? Technically speaking, they did in 1789. As to the practicality of it, the US government expanded massively from 1900-1950, so maybe during that time period. The FCC was formed in 1972, so on the issue of permissible purveyors of brain rot, maybe then.
    - konschubert 2y ago
      Btw, I used “you” as a reference to the sovereign democracy society, not the government.
- chpatrick 2y ago
  This is just the paradox of tolerance, if you allow everything you won't be free for long.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
In the US propaganda is free speech. We allowed enemies of the US to circulate Communist newspapers in America during the Cold War because we believe the people control the government not the government control the people
- chpatrick 2y ago
  Guess we're not going to mention McCarthy...?
  - the_af 2y ago
    McCarthy is an example of witch hunts, I wouldn't use it as a positive example.
    - chpatrick 2y ago
      I'm just saying the US govt hasn't been historically that big on certain types of speech, for better or worse.

infecto 2y ago

I think it’s more along the lines of the free market is great but if a foreign government has close control/ties with a pervasive social media business that it’s not great. Sounded like via an IPO they would have still had the ability to retain some ownership via the stock but would not longer have complete secret control.

CryptoBanker 2y ago

So is it fine when China does it, just not when the U.S. does it?

kaoD 2y ago
It is never okay, but the rest of the world (and sensible Americans) sees it as hypocritical when the land of the free does it. The US government should just go ahead and say it like it is: they'd like to hold as much power as the Chinese government does, and they're taking the steps to do so. The American oligarchy feels threatened because the empire is crumbling under their feet, so they're finally taking their masks off.
- japanification 2y ago
  [flagged]
mmacvicarprett 2y ago
I think the point is that China does not present itself as the paladin of free spech and individual liberties.
- bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago
  Chinese people and Chinese media businesses are not Americans. They are not protected by the constitution.
motorest 2y ago
> So is it fine when China does it, just not when the U.S. does it? What are you talking about? No US corporation can operate in China without granting China control over your data. I mean, anyone with a cursory understanding of the topic can tell you how China effectively forces internet companies to design their China presence as completely siloed operations with very tight requirements in what personally identifiable information they store.

kyrra 2y ago

The law states that it cannot be owned by a Chinese company. So they could be sold to owners in almost any other country (the law explicitly lists China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia as being banned. Edit: text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs.xml https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs..., which references a different part of the statute for the list of countries here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

withinboredom 2y ago
It’s interesting that they didn’t press the constitutionality of this. They fought over “free speech” where it’s more clear that this might be a bill of attainder or violation of the 14th amendment.
- motorest 2y ago
  > It’s interesting that they didn’t press the constitutionality of this. They fought over “free speech” where it’s more clear that this might be a bill of attainder or violation of the 14th amendment. Please explain in layman's terms why do you believe the 14th amendment applies to the federal government rejecting a corporation owned and controlled by a totalitarian regime from operating within the US.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I believe this applies to the USA as a whole as well, not just to states (Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) according to ChatGPT). One could argue the law is unconstitutional because it applies a punishment without due process.
    - philwelch 2y ago

maxdo 2y ago

The demand is literally stated to American or allies company. So this is not true. But that’s what national interest protection looks like. Look at Germany and Europe in general , they pay money to arm their aggressive neighbor, still not able to shield themselves from China. And asking US to protect Europe . I don’t think Europe , giving the situation is in position to suggest about national interest protection. It’s like drug addict talk about healthy lifestyle

xbmanhg 2y ago
[flagged]
- wrsh07 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, did the US also push Russia to invade Georgia? What about Crimea^? ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
  - 331c8c71 2y ago
    Georgia was not that dissimilar of a situation if I remember well, NATO cooperation and membership being widely discussed by Saakashvili.
drtgh 2y ago
> [...] And asking US to protect Europe To protect Europe from who... Let's look at where we are with cold eyes (I'm European). Russian direct energy supplies to the EU have been cut, raising energy costs, all EU industries are affected, making it more difficult to compete with China and the US. Energy, which now comes also in part through expensive ships from the US, whom -surprise- is now able to threat to cut it off, increasing influence over EU politics, energy that it is now also paid with dollar currency, at the same time EU economic resources -that should be used for the internal development- are being asked to be diverged to buy US weapons through NATO. So I would suggest to avoid the "US saving heroes" discourse. The reality sounds more like the US elite has benefited from the war (a big industry for them), so much that should be included within the suspicious list. What pockets planned and backed up the Maidan rise that removed the Kremlin's puppet from power? Who aimed and intended such country to join NATO along years before this event? Because can be guessed this aimed the psychopathic Putin to increase the violence of his mafia things, maybe someones expected this violence in invasion form, or another form that would drag Europe into the same position it is in now. > Still not able to shield themselves from China It would be interesting to read how one country has protected itself from China's dumping, among other things, considering the massive industrial companies and seaports the Chinese government already bought around the world, including the US.

atomicnumber3 2y ago

>amend the rules I dunno. I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough to get them to a) provide the actual fucking product, not some bastardized version that's intentionally bastardized to make people voluntarily keep using the evil version, AND b) not be evil. At the same time. Look at apple with the payment shit. They managed to do neither a NOR b! The data privacy stuff usually has companies just opting out of serving the EU. So, there's clearly a very hard problem here, of how do you make these entities whose sole goal is to maximize profit, who have managed to figure out a way that makes tons of profit while having the only "pollution" be the damage we do to our culture/dopamine receptors. Which is a lot harder to get people mad about compared to oil in the ocean and smog in the air. In the meantime, I don't mind us just trying to keep things at least vaguely geopolitically aligned. Look at what russia is doing to US politics with very basic tactics (reddit comments etc). Now imagine China trying to do something actually subtle. To underline the difference I'm referring to, just look at tiktok vs rednote. Western users immediately getting banned from rednote for posting the "wrong" kind of LGBT stuff. There are some fundamentally different cultural expectations about freedom of speech. Can you imagine how censored talking about vietnam would be if the US took the same approach as China did w.r.t. Tienanmen Square?

rapnie 2y ago
> I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough It takes a lot of time to open political eyes, break through lobby barriers, and get sufficient awareness on the deep issues. Then it takes an age - in business terms - for governmental action and regulation to follow. But if that is ramping up inertia builds and prolonged policy follows, hopefully as unstoppable tide. Other than some decent government regulation and old-fashioned unfair competition protection there's talk talk talk and not much that restrains Big Tech and the maddened billionaire class.

mcherm 2y ago

An an American, I also find it outrageous. In fact, as I understand it, our most fundamental law (the Constitution) clearly guarantees "freedom of speech and freedom of the press" which specifically means that the government may NOT shut down a particular publisher because the government does not like what they say, or who it is that owns them. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with me about what our Constitution requires.

sanderjd 2y ago
The Constitution does not guarantee any rights to the Chinese government.
- Oranguru 2y ago
  However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. Of course, if the law is (arbitrarily) changed to make this illegal due to the Chinese government's stake, then it could be forced to shut down, but that would be inconsistent with the constitution.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. ByteDance is a Chinese company with it's headquarters in China. The so-called TikTok ban is a call for ByteDance to sell off it's controlling position over TikTok, otherwise TikTok can no longer operate in the US. The fact that China is spinning this issue as a TikTok ban is telling.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      What would you call Tesla not being able to sell cars in China unless sold to a Chinese company - what might you call that? :)
      - josephcsible 2y ago

micromacrofoot 2y ago

You can't have this take without acknowledging the US is currently in a technological cold war with China. It's not old school at all, they've been hacking our infrastructure and stealing proprietary data from corporations for years (and vice versa, no doubt). Having a direct adversary control what young people consume for hours a day with a black-box algorithm is very dangerous. Also note that TikTok has been banned in Hong Kong for years now. I also think it's dangerous for domestic companies to do this, but obviously the US gov't is going to prioritize China because politicians can take bribes (in the form of lobbying) domestically.

nthingtohide 2y ago
US was doing the same thing to its own citizens. refer Zuck's podcast with Joe Rogan. The DeepState used carrot and stick approach to make Zuck kneel. They would have destroyed Meta if Zuck didn't succumb to their demands.
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  Yep definitely, the US does it all the time... but there's a big difference between doing it to yourself vs having your enemy do it to you.

datadeft 2y ago

Like Didi / Uber in China?

bad_user 2y ago

As a European born in communism, I find it dangerous for a communist and despotic state to yield so much power and for Europe to consider it business as usual, even if China may have started their own hybrid war with Europe, supporting Russia and preparing for the invasion of Taiwan. China, BTW, is censoring or blocking all Western social media platforms and online publications. Why should we accept their online services when they are blocking ours? Say what you will of USA, but they are allies and Europe needs to grow the f* up and stop being so tolerant of despotic countries, because our money and resources are fuelling their wars. I understand that you're afraid of the US yielding so much power online, but then propose a European alternative, not a Chinese one. Let's innovate instead of complaining about US's tech hegemony, as right now all I'm seeing are complaints and regulations for tech we aren't building.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
As a European born in communism, you think if a communist country censors our information, we should censor theirs? Hard to believe.

yyyfb 2y ago

Compare with China though. There is absolutely no way that a company like Bytedance would be allowed to operate inside China while under American control.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
Correct. All the popular US social media sites are fully banned in China.

sanderjd 2y ago

As of today, they would not be following American law by continuing to operate. The rules were amended by writing a new law that they're now following.

Aurornis 2y ago

> too successful and valuable to be foreign-held That’s a thoroughly disingenuous spin on the reasoning. There is no movement to prevent foreign companies from having popular apps in general. The law is narrowly targeted. TikTok could continue to be foreign-held as long as they separated from the government of a specific foreign country. I’m amazed at how many commenters are twisting themselves into pretzels to try to make this some generic imperialist move or use whataboutism to downplay the reasoning behind this move. A decade ago it was common knowledge on the internet that China heavily controlled and shaped internet discourse within their reach, to push government agendas in an extreme way. There is no parallel to their cultural control in the US. Did everyone suddenly forget this, or are they just ignoring it for the sake of argument?

varsketiz 2y ago
I found your angle very interesting. I'm baffled by the same thing. Is it that a new generation (that is now < 30) grew up without realising this? I wonder what is the age of average commenter here.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  After reading more comments, I think this comment section is just full of people who only read the headlines and then assume the rest, rather than try to read the articles or understand what’s going on. Whether you agree with the move or not, the storylines being pushed in hundreds of comments here don’t even reflect the reality of the law, let alone the reasoning behind it. It’s also ironic to read all of the commenters that don’t realize that China already controls social media use within their own country to a degree far more strict than this. The amount of control that China exerts over everything from Facebook to Google within their country was a well known topic for years online. Here on HN people were disgusted that FB and others were giving in to government censorship in those countries. Now it all seems to be forgotten? It’s weird to me to see all of the narratives in this comment section being built on top of imagined realities with no regard for how other countries have been operating for decades.
  - 2y ago

velcrovan 2y ago

> demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held This is a reductive and misleading analysis. The US has already prohibited foreign entities from holding broadcast/common carrier licenses, or from owning significant chunks of equity in holders of those licenses [1]. It should be kind of obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned. You could argue that if the US wants to update the 1934 telecommunications act for the 21st century, it should do so more thoughtfully and comprehensively (I would agree). But the TikTok ban, however poorly written or haphazardly targeted, is fairly in line with a legal doctrine that has been commonly known and accepted for 90 years. [1]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...

383toast 2y ago
> obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned. And yet many countries have no objection with letting their citizens use US FAANG services?
- philipov 2y ago
  They should, and they should develop home-grown alternatives to these services. It's not that Tiktok shouldn't be banned, it's that Facebook and Twitter should also be banned. Megacorps should to be destroyed up regardless of their nation of origin.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    > Megacorps should to be destroyed In your view: a) what is a megacorp (criteria), and b) why do you think they should be destroyed? For reference, the largest 15 companies in the world, by: - Market cap are: Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Saudi Aramco, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, TSMC, Berkshire Hathaway, Walmart, JPMorgan, Eli Lilly, Visa - by # of employees: Walmart, Amazon, Foxconn, Accenture, VW, Tata, DHL, BYD, Compass, Jingdong, UPS, Gazprom, Home Depot, JD Logistics, Agricultural Bank of China. - by earnings: Saudi Aramco, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, NVIDIA, JP Morgan Chase, Meta, Amazon, ICBC, China Construction Bank, China Pacific Insurance, Exxon Mobil, Agricultural Bank of China, Toyota https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/

rvba 2y ago

The thing is that you dont get the same free market in China. Can you even own a company in China? Not to mention anything uncensored?

maeil 2y ago

They don't have to sell it, they can simply choose not to operate in the US. If Zuckerberg, or Musk (X), or Reddit, or Snap, or HN, or any Western platform would want to operate in China, they'd have to hand over control to a Chinese company. Instead, they simply don't operate there. > "The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards". It's been blatantly obvious since the beginning of time that the free market isn't a thing. Foreign ownership of massive media platforms has been awful. The other way around as well. Would be fantastic if the EU banned Meta, for one. Instead they're suddenly scared of continuing to fine them for their continuous illegal data harvesting and gatekeeping to cozy up to Trump. Just consider Rupert Murdoch. Every country he's been active in would have been better off if he'd been straight up banned from owning local media companies.

dayvid 2y ago

It's not just broadcasting of info, it's having information on your location, contacts, comments, biometric data, etc. It's the reason why the military banned it first. It can definitely be a national security threat.

crote 2y ago
They don't need their own app for that. American companies are more than happy to sell all of that to the highest bidder.

wesapien 2y ago

It's ridiculous. Who made their now so called adversary? Who shifted production to them?

LPisGood 2y ago
I don’t think it really matters. The fact is there is now a semi-adversarial relationship.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rsanek 2y ago

they didn't demand it be sold to the US. they just said it can't be owned by china, NK, Russia, Iran. a European company could buy it and everyone could keep using it.

motorest 2y ago
> they didn't demand it be sold to the US. they just said it can't be owned by china, NK, Russia, Iran. On that note, I wonder if the same approach should apply to Elon Musk's Twitter takeover.
- nmeofthestate 2y ago
  It would be a no-op. "Twitter cannot be Chinese (or NK etc) owned." OK, done.

etempleton 2y ago

It has too much influence for China to hold. Let’s be clear if an EU country held Bytedance this would not be an issue. Really this is about not allowing China to do things and then not retaliating in kind. This is what China does to American companies and so no American company can really survive long term in China. It creates an imbalance and will eventually lead to China’s complete domination in most key industries. America is finally catching on.

markus_zhang 2y ago

I think we can just cut the crap and say, now the gloves have been taken off. It's a jungle. Let's grab whatever we can. I mean it has always been like this anyway, just with some gloves. There is no law above the states(elites).

mfuzzey 2y ago
And that is exactly what we don't want. We want civilized law based international relations not a jungle. International courts should settle disputes based on law
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  It's a good thought without practical implementation. How does the international law enforce anything? Actually, why do you pay tax if you don't have to and there is no IRS or whatever agency chasing you?

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

Why are you looking to the US for your outrage, EU members are doing the exact same thing: "Eleven EU countries took 5G security measures to ban Huawei, ZTE " https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/12/eleven-eu-countries-took-5g-security-measures-to-ban-huawei-zte https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/12/eleven-eu-countries...

mfuzzey 2y ago
It's not quite the same. The EU has banned those companies from supplying network infrastructure. That infrastructure is used both by private individuals and by companies, ministers etc. AFAIK they have also banned TikTok on official government phones. However they have not generally banned TikTok for everyone. To me this makes more sense since a back door in network infrastructure allowing governement communications to be intercepted is far more serious than some kid using TikTok.
- motorest 2y ago
  > AFAIK they have also banned TikTok on official government phones. However they have not generally banned TikTok for everyone. The US is not banning TikTok. The US is forcing ByteDance to sell it's controlling position on TikTok or else the company is no longer able to operate within the US. How come the critical bit is repeatedly left out?
  - palata 2y ago
    "I did not shoot this person: I asked this person to give me all their money or else I would shoot them."
    - motorest 2y ago
      No. The requirement is that ByteDance must sell it's position of a company. If you bother to learn about the law in question, it quite blatantly targets the ownership of the company, not the company itself. ByteDance instead opted to shut the company down in retaliation, because it found it was desirable to just crash the whole company than to have anyone else control it, and in the process is fooling useful idiots into believing this has nothing to do with China's interference.

mkhpalm 2y ago

It’s important to note that media companies in China are required to have a Chinese partner who holds a majority stake, typically 51% or more.

gardenhedge 2y ago

As a European, I think it makes sense to ban it. The threat is not the same from American companies.

palata 2y ago
I think Europe should ban the US social media as well as the Chinese ones.

rib3ye 2y ago

Look at the list of sites banned in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... Did you notice something similar about those companies, of which TikTok is included? Social media is not normal capitalism - it’s defense industry psychological warfare tooling. We’re seeing this play out big time in the Israeli and Ukrainian conflicts right now and it’s time to take a wartime approach to the issue.

goodluckchuck 2y ago

It’s not like TikTok is competing on the open market. They have massive financial backing irrespective of how much money they lose.

richardw 2y ago

China is not just foreign, it’s a rising superpower who has demonstrated ongoing information and cyber attacks against the US, and who has a stated goal of invading Taiwan. It attempts to dislodge the US or West influence wherever possible. That’s different to eg Germany, France or Japan. Playing fair is fine, so rather ask for level playing fields. Where there aren’t, apply pressure. Compared to arming other countries this is barely worth a big argument.

krab 2y ago

They did it before. See for example the history of Merck, a German pharma company during WW1. > The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards. I think that's the actual reasoning. Be mindful that USA is our ally but they'll always prefer their own interest and that's normal.

robswc 2y ago

> because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held That is not the reason at all. I highly doubt if it was made in Europe, it would be banned. China would never allow a TikTok equivalent to operate in China, which is smart. We should do the same.

dtquad 2y ago

As a European I noticed all the neo-authoritarian Russia supporters crying on X and BlueSky and therefore support the US ban on Tiktok. I am usually against the EU frenchies making up new regulations but they get a pass if they manage to ban Tiktok.

japanification 2y ago
[flagged]

jonny_eh 2y ago

China banned Youtube in 2009. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

oh-contrare- 2y ago

Eh-- Interjecting one's own opinion arguably amounts to intellectual imperialism. Imperialism is a part of life-- whether it's mold in a petri dish, prides of lions or chimpanzees raiding neighbors. We live in the wild where strength conquers. It's just that we forget that when we're insulated from reality by convenience, comfort, concrete, and naivete. No one should be ashamed for conquering or for exercising their own strength to their own benefit. Only those unable to do so are the ones to complain. And the complaints are futile-- Resource Competition is a fact of life and it is not going away.

bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago

As a European, you are allowed to feel however you want. As an American, I am allowed not to care.

baryphonic 2y ago

(American here.) I don't think I'd support a ban if ByteDance was a European company or Indian or South Korean or Japanese. China is a unique threat given the totalitarian turn they've taken over the past decade combined with the fact that no Chinese company is truly private in its day-to-day operations. All Chinese companies must have CCP influence as a matter of Chinese policy. It would be like if T-Mobile (the US mobile division of Deutsche Telekom) was required to have the influence of the German government including the monitoring and reporting of phone calls to senior party officials.

TulliusCicero 2y ago

> As a European, I find it quite outrageous to demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held. These sorts of bad faith comments are so tiresome to read. We all know that if the foreign country in question was Japan or France then nobody would really give a shit. Even a more neutral country like India or Brazil would likely be completely fine. It's specifically an issue because China is a geopolitical opponent of the US that we're engaged in a sort of new cold war with. Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already, and a bunch of other websites and apps besides. Tit-for-tat is very common in trade, you can't expect other countries to leave your foreign ventures untouched if you heavily restrict theirs.

palata 2y ago
How come Xiaomi is not banned in the US? Only the most successful commercially get banned, but that's solely for national security, right? /s > Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already And the US is usually pretty good at criticising that. But apparently not so good at accepting when other criticise the US for doing the same.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  Is your argument seriously, "yeah but if the US doesn't ban things as hard as China, it doesn't count"? Personally I'd love for the US to ban or restrict more things from China. Not because that's the end state I want, but maybe it'd get China to loosen restrictions so that we'd get closer to parity.
  - palata 2y ago
    No. My point is that the US is hypocritical about this. Every excuse is found to not call this protectionism. It is protectionism, period. If Huawei smartphones are a national security threat that justifies a ban, then Xiaomi smartphones are as well. But those are not banned. Why? Because the ban is more for protectionism than for security reasons. Just own it, that's fine.

6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago

This is the most disappointing part. We've let some of our companies do sketchy stuff because it's so hard to see where a new ecosystem will go ahead of time, and really hard to roll back popular ecosystems. But finally we have the political will to make a change for the better, and instead of ruling that 'oh turns out it is bad to allow XYZ, so here are some new rules preventing XYZ,' we're ruling that 'oh turns out it is bad to allow XYZ, so here are some new rules saying only I get to do XYZ.'

Gimpei 2y ago

You shouldn’t. Lest we forget, China has banned all American social media companies and quite a few other tech companies. Why shouldn’t the US do the same? Red Note should probably be banned too. The condition to lift the ban? Allow google, facebook, snap, etc in China. Until that day, I don’t understand why this is even a question.

palata 2y ago
I am fine with the US doing protectionism, it's their choice. But they should own it. Not always play the kings of freedom, with freedom being systematically defined as "whatever is best for the US".
- lvl155 2y ago
  It’s not even protectionism. US is the only country in the world to honor unwritten free market rules. Simply because people here believe in it. All we want is reciprocity. US is not protecting the Googles and Facebooks of the world. No one told the RoW to have restrictive politics that kill innovations to the extent that their best talent rather come to the US to pursue their dreams.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lossolo 2y ago

What’s also outrageous is that while there is no proof that the CCP is using TikTok for nefarious purposes in EU/US (at least for now), there is evidence of the owner of X using his power to influence European elections in many EU countries, while spreading misinformation and fake news himself. But we can’t ban it in the EU because our security-reliant master won’t allow it.[1] 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-nato-support-eu-regulation-x-musk-free-speech-2024-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-nato-support-eu-reg...

lvl155 2y ago

That’s rich coming from Europe. You guys pillaged rest of the world for 700 years. Took all the gold from the Americas then proceeded enslave Africans for centuries. And normalized it. Play by the rules? What rules?

cryptonector 2y ago

This is par for the course worldwide and for the U.S. in particular. Nothing really new here.

josephcsible 2y ago

Nobody was demanding that it be sold to the US. There are almost 200 countries in the world, and all but 4 of them would have been fine.