The law, if complied, effectively means they forsake their US value.
Of cuz, these big corps already forsaken their US values in almost all aspects of their businesses, but they cannot put that under the focus light of China, the forbidden word...
Then there are Apple and Microsoft.
In the end, we get a living example of why GPT3 questions humans intelligence...
And if they hadn't, I would hope that this discussion we're having would include what sanctions Google should face for not backing out. I'm having a hard time following how folks in threads related to China are not seeing that this game is being played by two players with completely different understandings of the rules. Player 1 spends an inordinate amount of time with the rule book, complaining to others that player 2 isn't playing fairly. Player 2 continues taking territory knowing that by the time player 1 realizes it's not about following the rules - it's about winning - it'll be too late.
> what sanctions Google should face for not backing out
What are the sanctions?
I am not aware of firms doing business to China are punished by any sovereign nations?
> this game is being played by two players with completely different understandings of the rules
What do you mean by different understanding of the rules?
I thought here China and US do have different rules, and firms are facing different rules when they operate at these 2 nations. How and why that leads to different understanding of (the same set of) rules?
> Player 1 ... Player 2
Who are these corresponding to China and US?
I am fairly exposed to the complexity involves in the sino us relationship both economic and political. There certainly isn't systematic imbalance in terms of one government is playing by rules and the others don't.
There are none right now, that's my point. But if PRC is going to co-opt US companies as they implement other strategies to become global hegemon in 10 years time, it's perfectly appropriate to ask questions about whether or not American companies should play party to this - and whether or not the American government should do anything to stop or reverse the trend.
>What do you mean by different understanding of the rules?
>Who are these corresponding to China and US?
I'm not really convinced you're arguing in good faith if your null position is that the US and China are behaving the same way in international markets. There's mountains of evidence to the contrary, going back 30 years.
>“While the news about Microsoft’s potential acquisition of TikTok was a huge relief for its American users, it was received poorly on the Chinese internet, with many calling Zhang Yiming, ByteDance’s founder and CEO, a ‘spineless traitor’ and a ‘despicable coward,’ among other insults.”
Seems like Weibo users are just as inflammatory and insufferable as Twitter users. Probably just as irrelevant too.
That's because Zhang Yiming is a big fan of American free market. Now they're mocking him because the free market he loves is not tolerating him. Gotta admit it's pretty funny.
The free market will create the greatest amount of wealth from a given amount of resources. Resisting the market will result in less wealth. But maximising wealth isn't the only strategic goal when dealing with China. The Communist party leadership are scary people.
China was wise not to let American tech companies have free access to their markets. America would be wise to reciprocate. Data is much more valuable in aggregate than it is to individuals and keeping it in house seems like it would be worth the costs. Europe has started to adopt a similar strategy of blocking data egress (via GDPR) and that makes sense to me too.
Spot on. The capitalist system SOLELY treats money as the sole objective. That's the game and fine, we accept it, it has 'worked' (more or less) for a very long time.
But really the world is becoming less about money. Heck, just look at all the money printing going on demonstrates that the value of money in absolute terms is diminishing [1]. We care more about our data, ideas, who stores them and what they use it for. We care about being influenced because it affects the decisions we make and the onward impact on the societies we live in.
China is absolutely petrified of the idea that people can band together and protest against their power structure. The US is petrified that Chinese companies can be used by state apparatus. Both concerns are legitimate to those on each side of the 'fence' here.
I really hope we don't end up with walls around each countries Internet but it may be unavoidable. We're becoming a civilisation less tolerant and more suspicious.
> Most free markets have a significant amount of dead weight loss.
This tends to be moved into "externalities" and doesn't affect the direct recipients of wealth. It does affect things like quality of life, environment, etc.
Why doesn't anybody talk about AirDroid "Remote access & File" which has over 100 million downloads and was developed by China-based Sand Studio. That app has complete access to a huge number of Android devices and suffers from far greater Chinese Communist Party data access issues than other Made In China applications.
At least currently, AirDroid is a FAR greater threat to global security than TikTok is.
Delivering content curated by Chinese Communist Party approved algorithms and censorship on what may become a core part of world pop culture is definitely a powerful piece of soft power. It's no exaggeration that any app delivering content to young people several hours a day may one day rival Hollywood in cultural influence.
But AirDroid gives you full remote access to your Android device through a web browser. Including messages (reading/sending/receiving), camera (taking photos/videos, and accessing existing photos/videos), and full access to files. It's used widely (even by corporate IT) to transfer files between Android devices and PCs over Wi-Fi.
It's a very functional app with remote access to millions of devices, and just like Huawei there are of course a steady stream of major security vulnerabilities. These may be plausible-deniable "bugdoors", or just sloppy practices introducing major vulnerabilities than happen to be exploitable by independent researchers and nation states.
The issue is that it's developed by a company based in China and thus very closely linked with the Chinese Communist Party and given what we know about the CCP, it's almost certainly regularly being used by the Ministry of State Security and People's Liberation Army for to exfiltrate specific highly valuable files eg, private messages, VPN and SSH keys.
It seems strange there's no debate on banning AirDroid when it poses a far greater immediate threat than TikTok.
Because the reason they focused on Tiktok is that the giant tech in america are unable to beat Tiktok popularity.
I could only see it like that, I'm sure that the reason of this banning if you can see is that Trump and US administration is just like a thug that were hired by some company to hinder/destroy the rising company.
AirDroid and its products are developed by SandStudio, a tech company based in Singapore, not China.
Regarding security, your claims are unfounded. AirDroid has published official statements outlining a pretty robust setup for security and privacy. They explicitly talk about using end-to-end encryption for remote access, HTTPS/SSL for data transfer, and they clearly state they don't sell user data. They also specify that access to your device is only based on the permissions you grant.
The article neglects to mention that Zoom video conferencing is largely developed in China (due to doing its R&D there). This point tends to start flame wars, but it's worth mentioning.
It's a valid point. They are probably doing R&D there because it is much cheaper than doing it in US. There was news somewhere that Zoom was moving all servers to US, and chances are they will have to move some development here as well, if they want to avoid being directed by the Chinese government.
The point about China R&D is a good one, and of course something to consider for other companies now and in the future. After all, he explains that Google was not banned in China, until Google put some operations into the country.
I think the article isn't trying to cover all the basis, but rather highlight that there are many difference ways to look at this problem.
There is always a reason why it might be a good idea for some government to prop up this and cut down that industry. The temptation is obvious, which is why people sometimes start believing in 5-year plans and great leaps forward, or enjoy Sim City.
Arbitrary action such as this is a sign of weakness: of economic weakness, and the fear to no longer be good enough to be the single biggest winner of free trade the US was for most of the 20th century. It's also a weakness of the law: of institutions competent and empowered to specifically define and litigate harmful behaviour, within the existing confines of law, such as due process. Instead, it's executive fiat, directed against foreign companies that have no lobby powerful enough to protect them, and coming from an office where nobody bothers to ask for reasonable explanations, because (last weakness) the guy is incapable, uninterested, and really just completely devoid of any understanding of the rule of law.
Americans already are losing as much as China is from this action. But its only in mindless entertainment that people won't complain about because they fear being mocked for enjoying such things. But if it works, the hits will start creeping closer, and you now need to make sure to stay not just on the right side of the law, but also the far-right side of politics.
Meanwhile, China isn't going to change for economic reasons: countries from cuba to North Korea to, for the longest time, the USSR have not budged in the face of sanctions. A country in the process of cutting off the lifeblood of its status as a superpower of science and entrepreneurship, just because people in rural counties that have never seen a foreigner have decided they don't like them, should really be in a good position to understand how powerless economic interests are against ideology and jingoism.
China isn't going to change for economic reasons because it is extremely successful economically. I wonder how the American psyche will be able to withstand the transition from demanding arbitrary sanctions on China for humanitarian reasons to demanding that China stop their sanctions on the US, also for humanitarian reasons.
A million Iraqis murdered by the US vs a million Uyghurs in reeducation/work camps by China. Frankly, the second option is more preferable to me and I'm sure the million dead Iraqis would agree.
The difference is that except for the leftover Neocon vanguard of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, no one is actually saying the Iraq War was a good thing, and no one making a serious argument about that war's history is claiming that the US "set out to murder one million Iraqis". These kinds of takes are meant to be reductionist ploys used to excuse the behavior of PRC by implying that there is some kind of moral equivalency between these events, which are separated by half a planet (literally) of context. Also, it might be wise to speak with some people who lived under actual oppressive/authoritarian regimes - like the Taliban or the Soviet Union - before making a claim that living that way is always preferable to death.
> no one is actually saying the Iraq War was a good thing
I am. The Iraq war was inevitable after Hussein built a massive army and declared himself the next Suleiman, and invaded Kuwait with Saudi Arabia being next.
Any serious historian or military analyst would come to the same conclusion.
Right. And you think people in the Chinese government set out to put a million Uyghurs in work camps while being criticized by the world? I’m sure it was done in the name of containing terrorism and extremism and it’s something they constantly justify to their population. Stop seeing China as some bogeyman.
I don't see China as a bogeyman. I see them as a rising power with global aims, and an explicit objective of suplanting the United States as the premier global power. It seems reasonable to ask questions about whether or not that is a good thing, both for the rest of the world and for the people of the United States. Fair?
That’s just empty whataboutism, a disingenuous form of discussion used to excuse atrocities. “Why are you singling out slavery in America, African tribes had slaves too!”
This was a thread about tiktok. Why did xinjiang come up in the first place?
People are obsessed with hating on China, and it's clearly based on national rivalry and a feeling of threat to america's position moreso than human rights.
this is beautifully put: Arbitrary action such as this is a sign of weakness: of economic weakness, and the fear to no longer be good enough to be the single biggest winner of free trade the US was for most of the 20th century.
> Even the ACLU seemed to be both against and for a Tiktok ban in recent tweets: “Banning an app like TikTok, which millions of Americans use to communicate with each other, is a danger to free expression and technologically impractical.” But the prevented free expression on Tiktok, noted above, is a great danger too. And since when does the ACLU care about technological impracticability?
> Another ACLU tweet: “To truly address privacy concerns with companies like TikTok, Congress must ensure that ANY company that services US consumers cannot hand over our data to any government without a warrant or equivalent. Letting the president selectively ban platforms isn’t the solution.” That tweet seems to be in favor of the ban and a process for banning other companies as well.
Seems pretty clear what the ACLU stance is. Banning TikTok is a political move that curbs free speech and has nothing to do with protecting speech. This is because we have domestic apps that not only can, but are, doing the same thing (Instagram silently dropping kamalaharris.info messages for violating "Community Standards").
If we ban the techniques that curb free speech instead, seems more in line with the argument of protecting free speech.
This story is still developing, but I think a forced buyout or outright ban is shortsighted.
The underlying fear is the impact that a foreign entity will have on our political and social fabric (because America has never done that before). It's a valid concern, especially after Cambridge Analytica. But TikTok falls into the same regulatory challenge forces that can impact change through social media platforms. Building a better framework is a long term solution that encodes into law American values, transparency, and constraints by the legislative branch, not precedent set by the executive branch.
At the same time, every time there is a major hearing against big tech, it's always disappointing.
The author is diminishing the bigger picture geostrategic issues such as trade, security, influence and state control.
This has little to do with 'expression or values' - they are hardly part of he equation.
TikTok is a 'large Chinese company' which means it has deep ties to the government. TikTok users were apparently partly responsible for screwing up Trump's rally. I don't actually believe China was behind this, nor are we sure how much said users had an effect, but the fact that this is plausible is a very, very serious concern.
Authoritarian states are getting really, really good at controlling information, it's much more effective than nuclear threats.
That most of us happen to loathe Trump (who as far as I am concerned would for TikTok to ban negative videos of him if he could get away with) is besides the point.
The 'tit for tat' issues are not issues of 'values' - they are mostly issues of trade asymmetry, and there are very legit concerns there.
The notion that one state could have so much information about another state and act coherently on that in the context of a fairly aggressive, almost Imperial plan, is something we're going to have to contend with very soon.
Edit: I should add that values/freedom of expression do matter of course, but they are absolutely not the driving factors underlying this issue. Arguably not even part of the equation at this point.
There are literally thousands of apps that do that, but they were targeting TikTok?
This is a political and economical move, if this is how US and Trump wanted it to be, by forcing another company to sell into another local company then it would be a forced acquisition and this would make other companies to reconsidered to invest or build their company in the US.
By this rule, other country in this case China could also enforced banning on services and products into their market with the reason of "Security, Influence and State Control"
What I found most funny about the situation is that Trump and people alike blame TikTok (at least partially) for their (for the lack of a better word) embarrassment. Is it not a known fact that our current president is hated by many? I don't need China to tell me that.
Most politicians are hated in the US. I believe congress has a much lower approval rating and the media even lower. 40-20-10 as a rough ratio if memory serves me well
The numbers you show confirm my statement, I was talking about congress, the legislative branch, on the whole. The point is that we do not approve of our government and media organizations by and large.
Without getting into the political aspects of this issue, I really appreciated the sophistication of this article. The author was able to provide a nuanced perspective that generalized into a meta-commentary about media and culture in general.
For instance, the author's point that US based media/commentators should consider how their Chinese counterparts are talking about the issue is really important for understanding this issue and similar cross cultural concerns, and sadly it is all too often overlooked.
52 comments
[ 0.31 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadBut I think it's still missing the point:
* There isn't a legal process of banning TikTok.
* The current process is overly politicized.
It's not that there isn't legitimate reasons to motivate banning TikTok. It's that such reasons cannot legally justify such action.
Of course there is presidential executive power to do that. But that should be used as a less common mechanism. Not on this minor issue.
My conclusion: The whole situation is out-of-proportional because of politics.
The Chinese government gave these companies a chance to stay, as long as the complied with the censorship laws.
Google was going to re-enter the Chinese market again with Project Dragonfly, but they backed out due to bad publicity.
Of cuz, these big corps already forsaken their US values in almost all aspects of their businesses, but they cannot put that under the focus light of China, the forbidden word...
Then there are Apple and Microsoft.
In the end, we get a living example of why GPT3 questions humans intelligence...
And if they hadn't, I would hope that this discussion we're having would include what sanctions Google should face for not backing out. I'm having a hard time following how folks in threads related to China are not seeing that this game is being played by two players with completely different understandings of the rules. Player 1 spends an inordinate amount of time with the rule book, complaining to others that player 2 isn't playing fairly. Player 2 continues taking territory knowing that by the time player 1 realizes it's not about following the rules - it's about winning - it'll be too late.
What are the sanctions?
I am not aware of firms doing business to China are punished by any sovereign nations?
> this game is being played by two players with completely different understandings of the rules
What do you mean by different understanding of the rules?
I thought here China and US do have different rules, and firms are facing different rules when they operate at these 2 nations. How and why that leads to different understanding of (the same set of) rules?
> Player 1 ... Player 2
Who are these corresponding to China and US?
I am fairly exposed to the complexity involves in the sino us relationship both economic and political. There certainly isn't systematic imbalance in terms of one government is playing by rules and the others don't.
There are none right now, that's my point. But if PRC is going to co-opt US companies as they implement other strategies to become global hegemon in 10 years time, it's perfectly appropriate to ask questions about whether or not American companies should play party to this - and whether or not the American government should do anything to stop or reverse the trend.
>What do you mean by different understanding of the rules?
>Who are these corresponding to China and US?
I'm not really convinced you're arguing in good faith if your null position is that the US and China are behaving the same way in international markets. There's mountains of evidence to the contrary, going back 30 years.
Of cuz they are not behaving the same way. But the issue is: are they behaving in the framework of law?
> Of course there is presidential executive power to do that
These contradict each other.
Seems like Weibo users are just as inflammatory and insufferable as Twitter users. Probably just as irrelevant too.
have to feel bad for the guy
he basically was taking over the world
And now he's getting kicked out of the biggest market on the planet
China was wise not to let American tech companies have free access to their markets. America would be wise to reciprocate. Data is much more valuable in aggregate than it is to individuals and keeping it in house seems like it would be worth the costs. Europe has started to adopt a similar strategy of blocking data egress (via GDPR) and that makes sense to me too.
But really the world is becoming less about money. Heck, just look at all the money printing going on demonstrates that the value of money in absolute terms is diminishing [1]. We care more about our data, ideas, who stores them and what they use it for. We care about being influenced because it affects the decisions we make and the onward impact on the societies we live in.
China is absolutely petrified of the idea that people can band together and protest against their power structure. The US is petrified that Chinese companies can be used by state apparatus. Both concerns are legitimate to those on each side of the 'fence' here.
I really hope we don't end up with walls around each countries Internet but it may be unavoidable. We're becoming a civilisation less tolerant and more suspicious.
[1] https://www.tradingview.com/chart/gYLDBzoy/ - Fascinating chart showing the US S&P 500 index divided by M2 (money supply)
What do you mean by this? Most free markets have a significant amount of dead weight loss.
This tends to be moved into "externalities" and doesn't affect the direct recipients of wealth. It does affect things like quality of life, environment, etc.
All systems have losses. Free markets will create more wealth than any of the alternatives.
At least currently, AirDroid is a FAR greater threat to global security than TikTok is.
Up weighting/down weighting content that exacerbates a rival nations problems or promotes the virtues of its own
But AirDroid gives you full remote access to your Android device through a web browser. Including messages (reading/sending/receiving), camera (taking photos/videos, and accessing existing photos/videos), and full access to files. It's used widely (even by corporate IT) to transfer files between Android devices and PCs over Wi-Fi.
It's a very functional app with remote access to millions of devices, and just like Huawei there are of course a steady stream of major security vulnerabilities. These may be plausible-deniable "bugdoors", or just sloppy practices introducing major vulnerabilities than happen to be exploitable by independent researchers and nation states.
The issue is that it's developed by a company based in China and thus very closely linked with the Chinese Communist Party and given what we know about the CCP, it's almost certainly regularly being used by the Ministry of State Security and People's Liberation Army for to exfiltrate specific highly valuable files eg, private messages, VPN and SSH keys.
It seems strange there's no debate on banning AirDroid when it poses a far greater immediate threat than TikTok.
I could only see it like that, I'm sure that the reason of this banning if you can see is that Trump and US administration is just like a thug that were hired by some company to hinder/destroy the rising company.
Regarding security, your claims are unfounded. AirDroid has published official statements outlining a pretty robust setup for security and privacy. They explicitly talk about using end-to-end encryption for remote access, HTTPS/SSL for data transfer, and they clearly state they don't sell user data. They also specify that access to your device is only based on the permissions you grant.
The point about China R&D is a good one, and of course something to consider for other companies now and in the future. After all, he explains that Google was not banned in China, until Google put some operations into the country.
I think the article isn't trying to cover all the basis, but rather highlight that there are many difference ways to look at this problem.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3946727
They promised to stop though.
Arbitrary action such as this is a sign of weakness: of economic weakness, and the fear to no longer be good enough to be the single biggest winner of free trade the US was for most of the 20th century. It's also a weakness of the law: of institutions competent and empowered to specifically define and litigate harmful behaviour, within the existing confines of law, such as due process. Instead, it's executive fiat, directed against foreign companies that have no lobby powerful enough to protect them, and coming from an office where nobody bothers to ask for reasonable explanations, because (last weakness) the guy is incapable, uninterested, and really just completely devoid of any understanding of the rule of law.
Americans already are losing as much as China is from this action. But its only in mindless entertainment that people won't complain about because they fear being mocked for enjoying such things. But if it works, the hits will start creeping closer, and you now need to make sure to stay not just on the right side of the law, but also the far-right side of politics.
Meanwhile, China isn't going to change for economic reasons: countries from cuba to North Korea to, for the longest time, the USSR have not budged in the face of sanctions. A country in the process of cutting off the lifeblood of its status as a superpower of science and entrepreneurship, just because people in rural counties that have never seen a foreigner have decided they don't like them, should really be in a good position to understand how powerless economic interests are against ideology and jingoism.
If we were talking about repatriating manufacturing and electronics, you could get me on board.
But all of a sudden we're super occupied with muslim rights when China is involved. Seems arbitrary to me.
I am. The Iraq war was inevitable after Hussein built a massive army and declared himself the next Suleiman, and invaded Kuwait with Saudi Arabia being next.
Any serious historian or military analyst would come to the same conclusion.
People are obsessed with hating on China, and it's clearly based on national rivalry and a feeling of threat to america's position moreso than human rights.
> Another ACLU tweet: “To truly address privacy concerns with companies like TikTok, Congress must ensure that ANY company that services US consumers cannot hand over our data to any government without a warrant or equivalent. Letting the president selectively ban platforms isn’t the solution.” That tweet seems to be in favor of the ban and a process for banning other companies as well.
Seems pretty clear what the ACLU stance is. Banning TikTok is a political move that curbs free speech and has nothing to do with protecting speech. This is because we have domestic apps that not only can, but are, doing the same thing (Instagram silently dropping kamalaharris.info messages for violating "Community Standards").
If we ban the techniques that curb free speech instead, seems more in line with the argument of protecting free speech.
The underlying fear is the impact that a foreign entity will have on our political and social fabric (because America has never done that before). It's a valid concern, especially after Cambridge Analytica. But TikTok falls into the same regulatory challenge forces that can impact change through social media platforms. Building a better framework is a long term solution that encodes into law American values, transparency, and constraints by the legislative branch, not precedent set by the executive branch.
At the same time, every time there is a major hearing against big tech, it's always disappointing.
This has little to do with 'expression or values' - they are hardly part of he equation.
TikTok is a 'large Chinese company' which means it has deep ties to the government. TikTok users were apparently partly responsible for screwing up Trump's rally. I don't actually believe China was behind this, nor are we sure how much said users had an effect, but the fact that this is plausible is a very, very serious concern.
Authoritarian states are getting really, really good at controlling information, it's much more effective than nuclear threats.
That most of us happen to loathe Trump (who as far as I am concerned would for TikTok to ban negative videos of him if he could get away with) is besides the point.
The 'tit for tat' issues are not issues of 'values' - they are mostly issues of trade asymmetry, and there are very legit concerns there.
The notion that one state could have so much information about another state and act coherently on that in the context of a fairly aggressive, almost Imperial plan, is something we're going to have to contend with very soon.
Edit: I should add that values/freedom of expression do matter of course, but they are absolutely not the driving factors underlying this issue. Arguably not even part of the equation at this point.
This is a political and economical move, if this is how US and Trump wanted it to be, by forcing another company to sell into another local company then it would be a forced acquisition and this would make other companies to reconsidered to invest or build their company in the US.
By this rule, other country in this case China could also enforced banning on services and products into their market with the reason of "Security, Influence and State Control"
Congresspeople have high approval from their own constituents. Everyone hates other district's congresspeople.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-...